CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

I never even heard of this office packages company.

If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.

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


http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/


Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?

Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT

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

One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------

the_brigadier
25 minutes ago

You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.

By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn? I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.

This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

well I never heard of that product and if there is any truth of what the
commenter states, I would not want to try it.

I really do not see any free office product that is better than
LibreOffice. I have been using LibreOffice since it was just about to
be released off of the "release candidate stage". Have been supporting
LO since 3.3.2 or 3.3.3. I have been handing out brochures of one type
or another promoting LO, and CDs and DVDs with LO on them since the
spring/summer of 2011.

I believe that LibreOffice is better than MSO, not just a free
alternative to MSO. I stopped buying MSO with the 2003 release.

So, I do not agree with your article.

I believe in LibreOffice and all of its pros and cons. I use it and
promote it.

So, I have never heard of Kingsoft's office package. I have never seen
any other articles stating that Kingsoft was a good or great free package.

The author of that article was me...just so ya know.

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn? I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Tom Davies]

Hi :) 

Kingsoft has been around for years but never got much market-share.  I like the idea of tabs and quite like that it has a ribbon-bar.  Tabs are not new.  At least one other Office Suite used tabs but used them very differently. 


Of course i prefer LibreOffice/OpenOffice/NeoOffice/Lotus Symphony, or Google-docs, or Caligra/KOffice or Gnome Office but it's good to see the alternatives to MS Office are beginning to be more widely recognised.  When competition is fair LibreOffice rises to the top but it's still healthier for the market to have choices rather than be dominated by a single profit-making company. 

Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 22:24
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
well I never heard of that product and if there is any truth of what the
commenter states, I would not want to try it.
I really do not see any free office product that is better than
LibreOffice.  I have been using LibreOffice since it was just about to
be released off of the "release candidate stage".  Have been supporting
LO since 3.3.2 or 3.3.3.  I have been handing out brochures of one type
or another promoting LO, and CDs and DVDs with LO on them since the
spring/summer of 2011.
I believe that LibreOffice is better than MSO, not just a free
alternative to MSO.  I stopped buying MSO with the 2003 release.
So, I do not agree with your article.
I believe in LibreOffice and all of its pros and cons.  I use it and
promote it.
So, I have never heard of Kingsoft's office package.  I have never seen
any other articles stating that Kingsoft was a good or great free package.

The author of that article was me...just so ya know.

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn?  I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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

[jorge]

Hi all:

I have installed Kingsoft in my Android Tablet because at this moment I
think is the best option in that plataform and we don't have LibreOffice
or OpenOffice for Android. But I didn't know that they have a version
for windows.

I didn't use it a lot because I use my tablet for others things, but
when I used it, its perfomance is good.

Of course, until I remember it doesn't have all the features that
LibreOffice or OpenOffice have (At least as I rememberd and I didn't use
my last update of this program in my Tablet to know is it it is true as
I tell you)

Regards,

Jorge Rodríguez

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
well I never heard of that product and if there is any truth of what the
commenter states, I would not want to try it.
I really do not see any free office product that is better than
LibreOffice. I have been using LibreOffice since it was just about to
be released off of the "release candidate stage". Have been supporting
LO since 3.3.2 or 3.3.3. I have been handing out brochures of one type
or another promoting LO, and CDs and DVDs with LO on them since the
spring/summer of 2011.
I believe that LibreOffice is better than MSO, not just a free
alternative to MSO. I stopped buying MSO with the 2003 release.
So, I do not agree with your article.
I believe in LibreOffice and all of its pros and cons. I use it and
promote it.
So, I have never heard of Kingsoft's office package. I have never seen
any other articles stating that Kingsoft was a good or great free package.

The author of that article was me...just so ya know.

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn? I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

--
Atentamente,

Jorge Rodríguez

[TOKI Kantoor]

Post by jorge
I have installed Kingsoft in my Android Tablet because at this moment I
think is the best option in that plataform and we don't have LibreOffice or OpenOffice for Android.

Try EuroOffice For Android for ODT format files.
Their website claims that CALC will be supported by the end of the year.

Also AndrOpenOffice.
It can read and write ODF format files, but not edit them.

jonathon

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
Ahh, brilliant!  Looks like we do have good options after all.  Thanks for that one!
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Post by jorge
I have installed Kingsoft in my Android Tablet because at this moment I
think is the best option in that plataform and we don't have LibreOffice or OpenOffice for Android.

Try EuroOffice For Android for ODT format files.
Their website claims that CALC will be supported by the end of the year.
Also AndrOpenOffice.
It can read and write ODF format files, but not edit them.
jonathon
--
LibreOffice in a Multi-Lingual Environment.
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Gordon Burgess-Parker]

Try EuroOffice For Android for ODT format files. Their website claims
that CALC will be supported by the end of the year.

Google doesn't show any results for EuroOffice - do you have a link?

[TOKI Kantoor]

Post by Gordon Burgess-Parker

Try EuroOffice For Android for ODT format files. Their website claims

Google doesn't show any results for EuroOffice - do you have a link?

http://www.multiracio.com/index.php?style=eurooffice&page=eo for the
Windows and Linux version.

http://www.multiracio.com/index.php?lang=en&style=eurooffice&page=eo_android
is for the Android version.

jonathon

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
That comment looks like FUD to me.  Where are the links to substantiate his claims?  There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment.  Perhaps some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at the truth is a tad tricky.  

Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft.  It's only the author's opinion.  PLus it's got a question mark after it.  If you search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of articles about LibreOffice


This page in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_office_suites
shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows and Gnu&Linux (incl Android).  LibreOffice's first release date is listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on such things.  Many people would say the first release of LO is the same as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release date over a decade ago.  I just had to do a little editing there myself but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft have been unchanged for ages, possibly years. 


Regards from

Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48
Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT. 
Have you read it Karyn?  I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
The MS Office Eula makes similar claims on the rights of work produced
using their software.  MS owns your work!  You don't!  It'd be
interesting to see that one stand up in court though.  Too many
precedents exist where MS has not fought to enforce that part of their
own Eula.  So, I can't imagine any judge anywhere allowing that.  Hmm,
maybe MS have changed their Eula since i last read it thoroughly about a decade or so ago. 


I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole.  I want to steer towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time.  I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then. 


What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why they 'cant' move away from certain software.  They moan and grumble
about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go
and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because they chose it.  Once they have made the break away from that certain software they become more reasonable about looking at other
alternatives realistically. 


One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it
uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar.  So, 'obviously' LO is old!  (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?).  Kingsoft neatly
deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an
alternative.  Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and
formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour grapes",
just because LO hasn't got it.  Now i can be seen to be offering genuine choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want to go. 


Of course any fool that does escape the one trap by jumping into another
is still able to completely jump free by trying out LO at some point in
the future.  Perhaps by then they will be ready. 


Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 1:46
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Hi :)
That comment looks like FUD to me.  Where are the links to substantiate 
his claims?  There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment.  Perhaps 
some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at 
the truth is a tad tricky. 
Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft.  It's only the 
author's opinion.  PLus it's got a question mark after it.  If you 
search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of 
articles about LibreOffice
This page in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_office_suites
shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows 
and Gnu&Linux (incl Android).  LibreOffice's first release date is 
listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on 
such things.  Many people would say the first release of LO is the same 
as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release 
date over a decade ago.  I just had to do a little editing there myself 
but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft 
have been unchanged for ages, possibly years.
Regards from
Tom :)

Kingsoft appears to use a proprietary format with MSO support. Also, they 
only have Writer, Calc, and Impress equivalents. Those two issues make me 
wary about the package: poor ODF support and limit suite. The ODF issue is 
philosophical; I prefer to use an open, ISO format that means my files are 
much less likely to be orphans in future. Most long time computer users 
have data that is in obsolete file formats if not on obsolete media.

________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48
Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO 
alternative is not LO
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn?  I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.

I doubt the reviewer ever read the Kingsoft EULA (nor have I). Though you 
do bring a good point about EULA's being highly anti-consumer as typically 
written by most properietary software companies. I would not be surprised 
if some EULA's by others claim ownership of all documents created by the 
package.
--
Jay Lozier

[Virgil Arrington]

If I recall, I tried Kingsoft a few years ago, and found it woefully
deficient for my needs. I don't recall specifically what the issue(s) were,
but I recall concluding that it couldn't hold a candle to LO.

As to the Ribbon, I pray LO never adopts it. A short while ago, we had a
discussion about using paragraph styles. In my experience with my technology
students, the Ribbon tends to encourage direct formatting of paragraphs by
having the formatting commands readily available. Yes, the Ribbon is easy;
yes, it is (generally) well organized. But, that very ease and organization
steers a person into thinking that the Ribbon is the *only* way to work, and
thus the user never learns to appreciate the great advantages to using
styles. Yes, styles are found on the Ribbon, but in such a way that many
users haven't a clue as to what they mean or how to use them. I much prefer
the hierarchical listing of styles docked to right side of my document.

Virgil




-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Davies
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 5:41 AM
To: Jay Lozier ; ***@Global.LibreOffice.Org
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO



Hi :)
The MS Office Eula makes similar claims on the rights of work produced
using their software. MS owns your work! You don't! It'd be
interesting to see that one stand up in court though. Too many
precedents exist where MS has not fought to enforce that part of their
own Eula. So, I can't imagine any judge anywhere allowing that. Hmm,
maybe MS have changed their Eula since i last read it thoroughly about a
decade or so ago.


I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer towards
using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.


What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why
they 'cant' move away from certain software. They moan and grumble
about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go
and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because
they chose it. Once they have made the break away from that certain
software they become more reasonable about looking at other
alternatives realistically.


One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it
uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar. So, 'obviously' LO
is old! (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?). Kingsoft neatly
deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an
alternative. Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging
about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and
formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour
grapes",
just because LO hasn't got it. Now i can be seen to be offering genuine
choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want
to go.


Of course any fool that does escape the one trap by jumping into another
is still able to completely jump free by trying out LO at some point in
the future. Perhaps by then they will be ready.


Regards from
Tom :)

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 1:46
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Hi :)
That comment looks like FUD to me. Where are the links to substantiate
his claims? There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment. Perhaps
some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at
the truth is a tad tricky.
Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft. It's only the
author's opinion. PLus it's got a question mark after it. If you
search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of
articles about LibreOffice
This page in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_office_suites
shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows
and Gnu&Linux (incl Android). LibreOffice's first release date is
listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on
such things. Many people would say the first release of LO is the same
as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release
date over a decade ago. I just had to do a little editing there myself
but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft
have been unchanged for ages, possibly years.
Regards from
Tom :)

Kingsoft appears to use a proprietary format with MSO support. Also, they
only have Writer, Calc, and Impress equivalents. Those two issues make me
wary about the package: poor ODF support and limit suite. The ODF issue is
philosophical; I prefer to use an open, ISO format that means my files are
much less likely to be orphans in future. Most long time computer users
have data that is in obsolete file formats if not on obsolete media.

________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48
Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn? I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.

I doubt the reviewer ever read the Kingsoft EULA (nor have I). Though you
do bring a good point about EULA's being highly anti-consumer as typically
written by most properietary software companies. I would not be surprised
if some EULA's by others claim ownership of all documents created by the
package.
--
Jay Lozier

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

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
I also dislike the ribbon-bar.  It's faster and easier to hunt around menus to find things you don't use all the time and/or can't remember exactly where they are or can't figure out the 'MS way of thinking' in order to find.  Plus people often see things that are unfamiliar and occasionally explore and thus learn new capabilities. 

However that's not the point.  A lot of morons now demand the ribbon-bar and can't cope without it.  A lot of them seem to think a program is old and rubbish if it doesn't have one.  "Why should i use the old looking one instead of the posh new one?" [errr, because it's better and easier to use and you won't make such a nightmare mess of things as you normally do]. 

Kingsoft fills that demand and might be a useful stepping stone on the migration away from dependence on MS.  I wont be using it myself, if i can possibly avoid it, but it's up to the morons to decide what they want to use even 'if' that turns out to only be temporarily.  LO is better so most of them will eventually migrate the whole way.  Getting people to move is tough but once they have started it's easier to keep them going. 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 12:45
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
If I recall, I tried Kingsoft a few years ago, and found it woefully deficient for my needs. I don't recall specifically what the issue(s) were, but I recall concluding that it couldn't hold a candle to LO.
As to the Ribbon, I pray LO never adopts it. A short while ago, we had a discussion about using paragraph styles. In my experience with my technology students, the Ribbon tends to encourage direct formatting of paragraphs by having the formatting commands readily available. Yes, the Ribbon is easy; yes, it is (generally) well organized. But, that very ease and organization steers a person into thinking that the Ribbon is the *only* way to work, and thus the user never learns to appreciate the great advantages to using styles. Yes, styles are found on the Ribbon, but in such a way that many users haven't a clue as to what they mean or how to use them. I much prefer the hierarchical listing of styles docked to right side of my document.
Virgil
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Davies
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
Hi :)
The MS Office Eula makes similar claims on the rights of work produced
using their software.  MS owns your work!  You don't!  It'd be
interesting to see that one stand up in court though.  Too many
precedents exist where MS has not fought to enforce that part of their
own Eula.  So, I can't imagine any judge anywhere allowing that.  Hmm,
maybe MS have changed their Eula since i last read it thoroughly about a
decade or so ago.
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole.  I want to steer towards
using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time.  I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.
What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why
they 'cant' move away from certain software.  They moan and grumble
about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go
and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because
they chose it.  Once they have made the break away from that certain
software they become more reasonable about looking at other
alternatives realistically.
One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it
uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar.  So, 'obviously' LO
is old!  (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?).  Kingsoft neatly
deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an
alternative.  Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging
about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and
formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour grapes",
just because LO hasn't got it.  Now i can be seen to be offering genuine
choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want
to go.
Of course any fool that does escape the one trap by jumping into another
is still able to completely jump free by trying out LO at some point in
the future.  Perhaps by then they will be ready.
Regards from
Tom :)

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 1:46
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That comment looks like FUD to me.  Where are the links to substantiate
his claims?  There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment.  Perhaps
some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at
the truth is a tad tricky.
Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft.  It's only the
author's opinion.  PLus it's got a question mark after it.  If you
search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of
articles about LibreOffice
This page in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_office_suites
shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows
and Gnu&Linux (incl Android).  LibreOffice's first release date is
listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on
such things.  Many people would say the first release of LO is the same
as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release
date over a decade ago.  I just had to do a little editing there myself
but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft
have been unchanged for ages, possibly years.
Regards from
Tom :)

Kingsoft appears to use a proprietary format with MSO support. Also, they
only have Writer, Calc, and Impress equivalents. Those two issues make me
wary about the package: poor ODF support and limit suite. The ODF issue is
philosophical; I prefer to use an open, ISO format that means my files are
much less likely to be orphans in future. Most long time computer users
have data that is in obsolete file formats if not on obsolete media.

Post by Tom Davies

________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48
Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn?  I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.

I doubt the reviewer ever read the Kingsoft EULA (nor have I). Though you
do bring a good point about EULA's being highly anti-consumer as typically
written by most properietary software companies. I would not be surprised
if some EULA's by others claim ownership of all documents created by the
package.
--
Jay Lozier

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

[Kevin O'Brien]

Post by Virgil Arrington
As to the Ribbon, I pray LO never adopts it. A short while ago, we had
a discussion about using paragraph styles. In my experience with my
technology students, the Ribbon tends to encourage direct formatting
of paragraphs by having the formatting commands readily available.
Yes, the Ribbon is easy; yes, it is (generally) well organized. But,
that very ease and organization steers a person into thinking that the
Ribbon is the *only* way to work, and thus the user never learns to
appreciate the great advantages to using styles. Yes, styles are found
on the Ribbon, but in such a way that many users haven't a clue as to
what they mean or how to use them. I much prefer the hierarchical
listing of styles docked to right side of my document.

It may be a coincidence, but when MSO started to use the ribbon I found
that I could not use Styles effectively any longer. I doubt any of the
actual functionality went away, but I kept getting lost trying to do
things I had been doing previously. So I also hope LO never goes there.

Regards,
--
Kevin B. O'Brien
***@zwilnik.com
There's a difference between tempting fate and giving it a lap dance.

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
The MS Office Eula makes similar claims on the rights of work produced
using their software. MS owns your work! You don't! It'd be
interesting to see that one stand up in court though. Too many
precedents exist where MS has not fought to enforce that part of their
own Eula. So, I can't imagine any judge anywhere allowing that. Hmm,
maybe MS have changed their Eula since i last read it thoroughly about a decade or so ago.
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.
What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why they 'cant' move away from certain software. They moan and grumble
about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go
and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because they chose it. Once they have made the break away from that certain software they become more reasonable about looking at other
alternatives realistically.
One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it
uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar. So, 'obviously' LO is old! (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?). Kingsoft neatly
deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an
alternative. Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and
formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour grapes",
just because LO hasn't got it. Now i can be seen to be offering genuine choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want to go.

I was talking to a professor a few days ago. He does not like the newer
versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the interface and
how to do things". I made sure he know about LO. He loved the multi
language part as well.

I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either. Sure, the type of
interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not mean
you need to change it. "Refreshing" or redesigning the interface, just
because you can, is not a reason to. One of the good things about LO as
it went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the interface does not change, or
has a slow change so it does not "stand up and slap your face" with the
changes. Once you learn "what is where" and how to do things, changing
that will cause problems. Sure the interface could use some
enhancements, like the "persona" addition, but to keep our users happy,
you must not make the users relearn how to do things or where are the
menu options are now located.


.

Post by Tom Davies
Of course any fool that does escape the one trap by jumping into another
is still able to completely jump free by trying out LO at some point in
the future. Perhaps by then they will be ready.
Regards from
Tom :)

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 1:46
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Hi :)
That comment looks like FUD to me. Where are the links to substantiate
his claims? There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment. Perhaps
some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at
the truth is a tad tricky.
Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft. It's only the
author's opinion. PLus it's got a question mark after it. If you
search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of
articles about LibreOffice
This page in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_office_suites
shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows
and Gnu&Linux (incl Android). LibreOffice's first release date is
listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on
such things. Many people would say the first release of LO is the same
as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release
date over a decade ago. I just had to do a little editing there myself
but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft
have been unchanged for ages, possibly years.
Regards from
Tom :)

Kingsoft appears to use a proprietary format with MSO support. Also, they
only have Writer, Calc, and Impress equivalents. Those two issues make me
wary about the package: poor ODF support and limit suite. The ODF issue is
philosophical; I prefer to use an open, ISO format that means my files are
much less likely to be orphans in future. Most long time computer users
have data that is in obsolete file formats if not on obsolete media.

________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48
Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn? I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.

I doubt the reviewer ever read the Kingsoft EULA (nor have I). Though you
do bring a good point about EULA's being highly anti-consumer as typically
written by most properietary software companies. I would not be surprised
if some EULA's by others claim ownership of all documents created by the
package.
--
Jay Lozier

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
+1
Good to see another professor that is not a moron about soemthing outside of her/his specialism!
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 15:18
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
The MS Office Eula makes similar claims on the rights of work produced
using their software.  MS owns your work!  You don't!  It'd be
interesting to see that one stand up in court though.  Too many
precedents exist where MS has not fought to enforce that part of their
own Eula.  So, I can't imagine any judge anywhere allowing that.  Hmm,
maybe MS have changed their Eula since i last read it thoroughly about a decade or so ago.
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole.  I want to steer towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time.  I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.
What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why they 'cant' move away from certain software.  They moan and grumble
about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go
and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because they chose it.  Once they have made the break away from that certain software they become more reasonable about looking at other
alternatives realistically.
One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it
uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar.  So, 'obviously' LO is old!  (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?).  Kingsoft neatly
deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an
alternative.  Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and
formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour grapes",
just because LO hasn't got it.  Now i can be seen to be offering genuine choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want to go.

I was talking to a professor a few days ago.  He does not like the newer
versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the interface and
how to do things". I made sure he know about LO.  He loved the multi
language part as well.
I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either.  Sure, the type of
interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not mean
you need to change it.  "Refreshing" or redesigning the interface, just
because you can, is not a reason to.  One of the good things about LO as
it went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the interface does not change, or
has a slow change so it does not "stand up and slap your face" with the
changes.  Once you learn "what is where" and how to do things, changing
that will cause problems.  Sure the interface could use some
enhancements, like the "persona" addition, but to keep our users happy,
you must not make the users relearn how to do things or where are the
menu options are now located.
.

Post by Tom Davies
Of course any fool that does escape the one trap by jumping into another
is still able to completely jump free by trying out LO at some point in
the future.  Perhaps by then they will be ready.
Regards from
Tom :)

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 1:46
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That comment looks like FUD to me.  Where are the links to substantiate
his claims?  There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment.  Perhaps
some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at
the truth is a tad tricky.
Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft.  It's only the
author's opinion.  PLus it's got a question mark after it.  If you
search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of
articles about LibreOffice
This page in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_office_suites
shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows
and Gnu&Linux (incl Android).  LibreOffice's first release date is
listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on
such things.  Many people would say the first release of LO is the same
as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release
date over a decade ago.  I just had to do a little editing there myself
but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft
have been unchanged for ages, possibly years.
Regards from
Tom :)

Kingsoft appears to use a proprietary format with MSO support. Also, they
only have Writer, Calc, and Impress equivalents. Those two issues make me
wary about the package: poor ODF support and limit suite. The ODF issue is
philosophical; I prefer to use an open, ISO format that means my files are
much less likely to be orphans in future. Most long time computer users
have data that is in obsolete file formats if not on obsolete media.

Post by Tom Davies

________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48
Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.
-----------------------------
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
adjustment.
Rick Broida
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the replies to that article is as follows
---------------
the_brigadier
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn?  I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.

I doubt the reviewer ever read the Kingsoft EULA (nor have I). Though you
do bring a good point about EULA's being highly anti-consumer as typically
written by most properietary software companies. I would not be surprised
if some EULA's by others claim ownership of all documents created by the
package.
--
Jay Lozier

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

[Girvin R. Herr]

Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
<snip>

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I was talking to a professor a few days ago. He does not like the
newer versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the
interface and how to do things". I made sure he know about LO. He
loved the multi language part as well.
I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either. Sure, the type of
interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not
mean you need to change it. "Refreshing" or redesigning the
interface, just because you can, is not a reason to. One of the good
things about LO as it went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the
interface does not change, or has a slow change so it does not "stand
up and slap your face" with the changes. Once you learn "what is
where" and how to do things, changing that will cause problems. Sure
the interface could use some enhancements, like the "persona"
addition, but to keep our users happy, you must not make the users
relearn how to do things or where are the menu options are now located.

I have been using the OO/LO office suite since OO.o 1.x and now I am
using LO 3.6.6. (I have not tried LO 4.0.x, since I am still waiting
for that less-buggy 4.1.5+ version to be released.) However, I have
found the incremental changes to the user interface refreshing. OO.o
and now LO, have made great improvements in this area with each
release. Nothing to make me go back to school to get my degree on how
to use it, but the changes made the functions much easier to use and
more intuitive. To me, that is a big plus. I want to be productive,
not have to re-learn user interfaces with each new release. Although I
am a retired electronics engineer, I am _not_ a techno-geek who has to
have the latest and greatest all the time. You won't find me waiting
for hours outside an Apple store to buy the latest iPhone. If it works,
don't "fix" it is my motto.
Girvin Herr

<snip>

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

Post by Girvin R. Herr
<snip>

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I was talking to a professor a few days ago. He does not like the
newer versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the
interface and how to do things". I made sure he know about LO. He
loved the multi language part as well.
I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either. Sure, the type of
interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not
mean you need to change it. "Refreshing" or redesigning the
interface, just because you can, is not a reason to. One of the good
things about LO as it went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the
interface does not change, or has a slow change so it does not "stand
up and slap your face" with the changes. Once you learn "what is
where" and how to do things, changing that will cause problems. Sure
the interface could use some enhancements, like the "persona"
addition, but to keep our users happy, you must not make the users
relearn how to do things or where are the menu options are now located.

I have been using the OO/LO office suite since OO.o 1.x and now I am
using LO 3.6.6. (I have not tried LO 4.0.x, since I am still waiting
for that less-buggy 4.1.5+ version to be released.) However, I have
found the incremental changes to the user interface refreshing. OO.o
and now LO, have made great improvements in this area with each
release. Nothing to make me go back to school to get my degree on how
to use it, but the changes made the functions much easier to use and
more intuitive. To me, that is a big plus. I want to be productive,
not have to re-learn user interfaces with each new release. Although
I am a retired electronics engineer, I am _not_ a techno-geek who has
to have the latest and greatest all the time. You won't find me
waiting for hours outside an Apple store to buy the latest iPhone. If
it works, don't "fix" it is my motto.
Girvin Herr
<snip>

My last version of MSO was 2003.
I ran OOo back in those early days as well, and went to LO back just
before they switched from the first RC version to the first "full
release" version back in late winter 2011. I currently use 4.0.3 on
both Ubuntu and Win7 systems.

I like the fact that the LO interface, as a whole, has not changed. Yes,
there are some added things, like the 1 or 2 page view and some other
things. But it looks mostly like it has been for that past year or
two. No need to relearn where the needed menu option has been
relocated. No need to figure out how to do needed options, since the
process has not changes or the change is slow slight is seem like no
change at all.

The one big complaint I have heard about MSO is the fact they seem to
change how you do things, after you get use to doing it their "new" way
after the last change. I know many business people have stated that
every time a new MSO is "bought" [or now rented] for their company
users, they have to spend time and money while the users learn how to do
the things they need to do with the changes that MSO has made in the
interface and the steps to do the needed options.

I need to relearn the interface for Paint Shop Pro X5, when I used
version 5 since the XP days. But since I can not get v5 to install on
Win7 Home Premium that my laptop has, I had to upgrade it and relearn
the new interface. Same with PSP 5 or X5 vs. GIMP. The time it takes
to relearn how to do the things that comes very easily to me with the
old interface, well it is very frustrating to say the least and has
taken 2 to 5 times longer to do the things I want/need to do.

So if people feel that way about the MSO interface changes, and want to
use one that is easier use and clearer to understand, then they need to
use a package - like LO - that does not have major interface changes. I
hope no one decides to revamp/refresh LO's interface to the point where
our users will have the same frustrations as they did with the constant
changes that MSO seems to relish in.

[MR ZenWiz]

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I just had to use Word10
again for a company spec, and I have to say...

One of the things about the ribbon that I find so annoying is that it
hides information.

Yes, it is organized in a way that some people find convenient and MS
obviously loves - for now.

But especially w.r.t. formatting and styles, I have the worst time
using it and most often resort to a nifty plugin that some brilliant
entrepreneur wrote and distributes for free that emulates the old
menus.

Specifically, I have trouble with two pieces of the styles.

One is that I can't tell from looking at even the expanded menu which
style the cursor paragraph is in. I'm pretty sure it is not my eyes or
color scheme, there's just no indication at all. It is also difficult
to see what the font and font-size are at a glance. All of these are
easily and prominently visible in the formatting toolbar that is
standard at the top of every document (in LO and any MSO before 2007).

The other is when I want to use a style that isn't on the menu, but I
know is available. I've never been able to figure out how to find
them, where in the pre-ribbon menu system, I just click on the style
down-arrow on the formatting bar and poof. Even if it's not there, I
can click on the formatting styles icon on the same bar and it is
trivial to make everything show up. The ribbon just doesn't present
this capability, or it is so obscure that finding it is an adventure
all its own.

There are many other things I dislike about the ribbon. The main one
is that the fundamental window toolbar style and
every-other-imaginable-kind-of-window-except-Chrome menu bar have been
around since the dawn of (all?) windowing systems, so around 30+
years, but MS just couldn't make it better, they had to mangle it
completely and use the 2007 and newer versions to force users into
their new world.

Whatever happened to meeting the users' needs, rather than mandating
their changes?

</soapbox>

Maybe I'm just a traditionalist, but I've seen the whole gamut from
CP/M (and older) to now, and the ribbon made a change that was
unnecessary, cryptic and only barely and narrowly easier to use than
the menus.

Foo.

Cheers!

MR

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
+1
Those things probably are there but it's a pain trying to find anything.  2007 is even worse than 2010! 

I know one of them is that you have to keep going back to the "Home" tab in order to see the font, font-size and maybe paragraph-style at the cursor's location.  What has always annoyed me about MSO is that style might change 4 times in 4 characters beside each other, possibly even within a single word.  But that was 1 of the things we were grumbling about in the styles thread fairly recently. 

I'm just really glad i can stick with LibreOffice for pretty much everything now. 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 20:21
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I just had to use Word10
again for a company spec, and I have to say...
One of the things about the ribbon that I find so annoying is that it
hides information.
Yes, it is organized in a way that some people find convenient and MS
obviously loves - for now.
But especially w.r.t. formatting and styles, I have the worst time
using it and most often resort to a nifty plugin that some brilliant
entrepreneur wrote and distributes for free that emulates the old
menus.
Specifically, I have trouble with two pieces of the styles.
One is that I can't tell from looking at even the expanded menu which
style the cursor paragraph is in. I'm pretty sure it is not my eyes or
color scheme, there's just no indication at all.  It is also difficult
to see what the font and font-size are at a glance.  All of these are
easily and prominently visible in the formatting toolbar that is
standard at the top of every document (in LO and any MSO before 2007).
The other is when I want to use a style that isn't on the menu, but I
know is available.  I've never been able to figure out how to find
them, where in the pre-ribbon menu system, I just click on the style
down-arrow on the formatting bar and poof.  Even if it's not there, I
can click on the formatting styles icon on the same bar and it is
trivial to make everything show up.  The ribbon just doesn't present
this capability, or it is so obscure that finding it is an adventure
all its own.
There are many other things I dislike about the ribbon.  The main one
is that the fundamental window toolbar style and
every-other-imaginable-kind-of-window-except-Chrome menu bar have been
around since the dawn of (all?) windowing systems, so around 30+
years, but MS just couldn't make it better, they had to mangle it
completely and use the 2007 and newer versions to force users into
their new world.
Whatever happened to meeting the users' needs, rather than mandating
their changes?
</soapbox>
Maybe I'm just a traditionalist, but I've seen the whole gamut from
CP/M (and older) to now, and the ribbon made a change that was
unnecessary, cryptic and only barely and narrowly easier to use than
the menus.
Foo.
Cheers!
MR
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Girvin R. Herr]

Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
<snip>

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I need to relearn the interface for Paint Shop Pro X5, when I used
version 5 since the XP days. But since I can not get v5 to install on
Win7 Home Premium that my laptop has, I had to upgrade it and relearn
the new interface. Same with PSP 5 or X5 vs. GIMP. The time it takes
to relearn how to do the things that comes very easily to me with the
old interface, well it is very frustrating to say the least and has
taken 2 to 5 times longer to do the things I want/need to do.

Ahh! The Gimp. Great program and I do have some use for it. However,
learning it has a _steep_ learning curve for me and, frankly, sitting at
the screen and reading the online manual is not what I would prefer
using my limited time for. There are several "learning" books out
there, but which one is the best one I need to learn The Gimp? That is
my problem with it. Once or twice I fiddled with it and got it to do
somewhat what I wanted, but it wasn't very intuitive and I feel it could
do so much more for me. If I could just get a good book on it and sit
down and play with it...
Girvin Herr

<snip>

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
I use it for significant chunks of my working day but i've never read-up about it.  I don't need advanced features but every once in a while i explore a bit and learn a bit more.  Hmm, that's not entirely true but i don't spend long looking things up and tend to focus on reading only to achieve a specific task. 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 20:50
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
<snip>

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I need to relearn the interface for Paint Shop Pro X5, when I used
version 5 since the XP days.  But since I can not get v5 to install on
Win7 Home Premium that my laptop has, I had to upgrade it and relearn
the new interface.  Same with PSP 5 or X5 vs. GIMP.  The time it takes
to relearn how to do the things that comes very easily to me with the
old interface, well it is very frustrating to say the least and has
taken 2 to 5 times longer to do the things I want/need to do.

Ahh!  The Gimp.  Great program and I do have some use for it.  However,
learning it has a _steep_ learning curve for me and, frankly, sitting at
the screen and reading the online manual is not what I would prefer
using my limited time for.  There are several "learning" books out
there, but which one is the best one I need to learn The Gimp?  That is
my problem with it.  Once or twice I fiddled with it and got it to do
somewhat what I wanted, but it wasn't very intuitive and I feel it could
do so much more for me.  If I could just get a good book on it and sit
down and play with it...
Girvin Herr
<snip>
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Ken Springer]

On 6/7/13 3:41 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

<snip>

Post by Tom Davies
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.

You just hope the formats will be around 10-20 years from now. There's
no guaranteed the current ODT format will even be viable then. Similar
to the way desktop design interfaces are basically horrible on cell
phones and tablets (IMO), all of it can change almost overnight with
hardware changes.

I stopped installing LO on the free computers I occasionally rebuild.
Why? Because I guessed the odds were the recipients would be more
familiar with the Office interface, or their friends that helped them
would. And my goal was to make it easy for them.

Plus, too many LO bugs that just pissed me off. <sad smile>

Post by Tom Davies
What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why they 'cant' move away from certain software. They moan and grumble
about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go
and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because they chose it. Once they have made the break away from that certain software they become more reasonable about looking at other
alternatives realistically.

You're pretty much right here, Tom. It seems that while users will look
at 5, 10, 15 different TV's, they don't do that with software or
computer systems. And that probably has a lot to do with the fact you
can't find anything in the stores to look at.

I used to do this, got far, far away from that, now going back to
looking for the computer "tools" that work for me. At the moment, I'm
trying the demo of a program for writing, and if things keep working out
the way they seem to be, you won't see me using Writer, Word, or any
other "standard" office suite word processor ever again.

Post by Tom Davies
One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it
uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar. So, 'obviously' LO is old! (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?). Kingsoft neatly
deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an
alternative. Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and
formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour grapes",
just because LO hasn't got it. Now i can be seen to be offering genuine choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want to go.

I get tired of hearing this ribbon argument over and over again. Some
people like it. Some people don't. If you want to appeal to the most
users on this aspect, give people a choice. MS does, you can hide the
thing. I've not used Word regularly since 2003, so I can't say whether
the menu interface that appears when you hide the ribbon is as
functional as its predecessors.

<snip>
--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.1.2

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
ODF is implemented the way it's documented as an ISO standard.  A lot of programs use the same implementation.  According to devs it's fairly easy to write something that can read it.

Where programs have variations on their implementation those tend to be written up as bug-reports (and gets fixed) or added to the file about what the "Extended" means in "ODF 1.2 (Extended)". 

So, it's all clearly documented and is true to it's documentation.  That is all the reverse of all other formats

In future years if you talk about trying to access large amounts of Rtf files, or DocX, then you need to know which version of the format, which version of the Office Suite, even which OS was used to create the files.  Documentation about the format wont help much because implementation is so far away from it. 

Wrt the ribbon argument, i'm glad it's over.  If the 'must have a ribbon' they can have Kingsoft [shrugs].  The reason for LO to have one has now vanished because there is an alternative to MSO that has one.  People will get tired of Kingsoft and may be more receptive to LO. 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 23:10
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
<snip>

Post by Tom Davies
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole.  I want to steer towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time.  I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.

You just hope the formats will be around 10-20 years from now.  There's no guaranteed the current ODT format will even be viable then.  Similar to the way desktop design interfaces are basically horrible on cell phones and tablets (IMO), all of it can change almost overnight with hardware changes.
I stopped installing LO on the free computers I occasionally rebuild. Why?  Because I guessed the odds were the recipients would be more familiar with the Office interface, or their friends that helped them would.  And my goal was to make it easy for them.
Plus, too many LO bugs that just pissed me off.  <sad smile>

Post by Tom Davies
What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why they 'cant' move away from certain software.  They moan and grumble
about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go
and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because they chose it.  Once they have made the break away from that certain software they become more reasonable about looking at other
alternatives realistically.

You're pretty much right here, Tom.  It seems that while users will look at 5, 10, 15 different TV's, they don't do that with software or computer systems.  And that probably has a lot to do with the fact you can't find anything in the stores to look at.
I used to do this, got far, far away from that, now going back to looking for the computer "tools" that work for me.  At the moment, I'm trying the demo of a program for writing, and if things keep working out the way they seem to be, you won't see me using Writer, Word, or any other "standard" office suite word processor ever again.

Post by Tom Davies
One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it
uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar.  So, 'obviously' LO is old!  (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?).  Kingsoft neatly
deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an
alternative.  Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and
formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour grapes",
just because LO hasn't got it.  Now i can be seen to be offering genuine choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want to go.

I get tired of hearing this ribbon argument over and over again.  Some people like it.  Some people don't.  If you want to appeal to the most users on this aspect, give people a choice.  MS does, you can hide the thing.  I've not used Word regularly since 2003, so I can't say whether the menu interface that appears when you hide the ribbon is as functional as its predecessors.
<snip>
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.1.2

[Steve Edmonds]

Post by Girvin R. Herr
<snip>

Post by Virgil Arrington
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer
towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.

You just hope the formats will be around 10-20 years from now. There's
no guaranteed the current ODT format will even be viable then.
Similar to the way desktop design interfaces are basically horrible on
cell phones and tablets (IMO), all of it can change almost overnight
with hardware changes.

And LO are doing it now. LO4 already drops previous file compatibility,
if AOO maintains that compatibility I will be looking hard at it.
Steve

[Robert Holtzman]

Post by Steve Edmonds

Post by Girvin R. Herr
<snip>

Post by Virgil Arrington
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to
steer towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.

You just hope the formats will be around 10-20 years from now.
There's no guaranteed the current ODT format will even be viable
then. Similar to the way desktop design interfaces are basically
horrible on cell phones and tablets (IMO), all of it can change
almost overnight with hardware changes.

And LO are doing it now. LO4 already drops previous file
compatibility, if AOO maintains that compatibility I will be looking
hard at it.

I think you mean "if AOO doesn't maintain...." True?

I thought one of the arguments for dropping MSO in favor of LO or
OOo is that MSO ceased supporting older formats when there was a
new release. What formats has LO stopped supporting?

[Mirosław Zalewski]

Post by Ken Springer
I've not used Word regularly since 2003, so I can't say whether
the menu interface that appears when you hide the ribbon is as
functional as its predecessors.

There is no "menu interface". You simply hide content of ribbons, leaving tabs
at top of window. When you click on tab, it's content in "ribbon-form" will
appear.

If you want old menu in MS Office post-2007, you must buy some third party
extension.

While it might be good idea to give users choice about interface they like, MS
is definitely not giving it their users (but MS never promised to be about
choice, so it's hardly an accusation).
--
Best regards
Mirosław Zalewski

[anne-ology]

so agree :-)

'change for the sake of change' is so inane.



On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Girvin R. Herr

Post by Girvin R. Herr
<snip>

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I was talking to a professor a few days ago. He does not like the newer
versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the interface and how
to do things". I made sure he know about LO. He loved the multi language
part as well.
I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either. Sure, the type of
interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not mean
you need to change it. "Refreshing" or redesigning the interface, just
because you can, is not a reason to. One of the good things about LO as it
went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the interface does not change, or has a
slow change so it does not "stand up and slap your face" with the changes.
Once you learn "what is where" and how to do things, changing that will
cause problems. Sure the interface could use some enhancements, like the
"persona" addition, but to keep our users happy, you must not make the
users relearn how to do things or where are the menu options are now
located.
I have been using the OO/LO office suite since OO.o 1.x and now I am

using LO 3.6.6. (I have not tried LO 4.0.x, since I am still waiting for
that less-buggy 4.1.5+ version to be released.) However, I have found the
incremental changes to the user interface refreshing. OO.o and now LO,
have made great improvements in this area with each release. Nothing to
make me go back to school to get my degree on how to use it, but the
changes made the functions much easier to use and more intuitive. To me,
that is a big plus. I want to be productive, not have to re-learn user
interfaces with each new release. Although I am a retired electronics
engineer, I am _not_ a techno-geek who has to have the latest and greatest
all the time. You won't find me waiting for hours outside an Apple store
to buy the latest iPhone. If it works, don't "fix" it is my motto.
Girvin Herr

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
+1
and welcome back Anne-ology! :D 

On the other hand it's nice to see a competitor getting sucked into changes that it's not going to be able to keep up with.  Nice to see they offer the option so that we don't have to ;)
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
      so agree  :-)
'change for the sake of change' is so inane.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Girvin R. Herr

Post by Girvin R. Herr
<snip>

I was talking to a professor a few days ago.  He does not like the newer
versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the interface and how
to do things". I made sure he know about LO.  He loved the multi language
part as well.
I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either.  Sure, the type of
interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not mean
you need to change it.  "Refreshing" or redesigning the interface, just
because you can, is not a reason to.  One of the good things about LO as it
went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the interface does not change, or has a
slow change so it does not "stand up and slap your face" with the changes.
  Once you learn "what is where" and how to do things, changing that will
cause problems.  Sure the interface could use some enhancements, like the
"persona" addition, but to keep our users happy, you must not make the
users relearn how to do things or where are the menu options are now
located.
  I have been using the OO/LO office suite since OO.o 1.x and now I am

using LO 3.6.6.  (I have not tried LO 4.0.x, since I am still waiting for
that less-buggy 4.1.5+ version to be released.)  However, I have found the
incremental changes to the user interface refreshing.  OO.o and now LO,
have made great improvements in this area with each release.  Nothing to
make me go back to school to get my degree on how to use it, but the
changes made the functions much easier to use and more intuitive.  To me,
that is a big plus.  I want to be productive, not have to re-learn user
interfaces with each new release.  Although I am a retired electronics
engineer, I am _not_ a techno-geek who has to have the latest and greatest
all the time.  You won't find me waiting for hours outside an Apple store
to buy the latest iPhone.  If it works, don't "fix" it is my motto.
Girvin Herr

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

[Felmon Davis]

Post by anne-ology
so agree :-)
'change for the sake of change' is so inane.

how can you kids be all for 'if it works, don't fix it' and then
praise improvements?

shouldn't your motto be, "if it will work better, fix it"?

F.

Post by anne-ology
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Girvin R. Herr

Post by Girvin R. Herr
<snip>

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I was talking to a professor a few days ago. He does not like the newer
versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the interface and how
to do things". I made sure he know about LO. He loved the multi language
part as well.
I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either. Sure, the type of
interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not mean
you need to change it. "Refreshing" or redesigning the interface, just
because you can, is not a reason to. One of the good things about LO as it
went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the interface does not change, or has a
slow change so it does not "stand up and slap your face" with the changes.
Once you learn "what is where" and how to do things, changing that will
cause problems. Sure the interface could use some enhancements, like the
"persona" addition, but to keep our users happy, you must not make the
users relearn how to do things or where are the menu options are now
located.
I have been using the OO/LO office suite since OO.o 1.x and now I am

using LO 3.6.6. (I have not tried LO 4.0.x, since I am still waiting for
that less-buggy 4.1.5+ version to be released.) However, I have found the
incremental changes to the user interface refreshing. OO.o and now LO,
have made great improvements in this area with each release. Nothing to
make me go back to school to get my degree on how to use it, but the
changes made the functions much easier to use and more intuitive. To me,
that is a big plus. I want to be productive, not have to re-learn user
interfaces with each new release. Although I am a retired electronics
engineer, I am _not_ a techno-geek who has to have the latest and greatest
all the time. You won't find me waiting for hours outside an Apple store
to buy the latest iPhone. If it works, don't "fix" it is my motto.
Girvin Herr

[Doug]

Post by anne-ology
so agree :-)
'change for the sake of change' is so inane.

how can you kids be all for 'if it works, don't fix it' and then praise
improvements?
shouldn't your motto be, "if it will work better, fix it"?
F.

/snip/

Post by anne-ology
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Girvin R. Herr

Post by Girvin R. Herr
<snip>

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I was talking to a professor a few days ago. He does not like the newer
versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the interface and how
to do things".

/snip/

You won't find me waiting for hours outside an Apple

Post by anne-ology

Post by Girvin R. Herr
store
to buy the latest iPhone. If it works, don't "fix" it is my motto.
Girvin Herr

The problem for us who are happy with certain things and just wish
they'd fix the bugs, is that all the programmers who write code for
the apps would shortly be out of business! So would a lot of
advertisers. I am not a fan of LO, and I believe that some other
programs, both free and not, serve me better, but, frinstance,
I was happy with WordPerfect as it existed 15 years ago, and the
only real change I see is that it now reads and writes a lot more
competing formats--because, not being MSWord, it has to. And if they
had only fixed the bugs in Windows 98, and converted it to 32, then
64, bits, leaving the interface alone, I would be much happier with
Windows than I am. But then MS programmers would all have been out on
the street 10 years ago or more.
Somehow, since the scientific revolution, starting around 1800,
progress has given birth to a byproduct called "change for the sake of
change." Or maybe it started with Gutenberg. But it's certainly with
us now!
And Linux? A lot of the distros are written by paid programmers, and
what isn't is done by hobbyists who would be bored if they couldn't
find something to tweak and bend and, it must be said, break!
Rant over--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley

[Virgil Arrington]

This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user interfaces
and the dreaded ribbon. I've not found *anyone* who actually likes the
ribbon. I agree with several of you who have observed that the ribbon makes
using styles much harder. And, since it's harder to use styles, it only
makes it that much harder for me to teach styles to my students and
effectively persuade them to use styles.

It makes me wonder if MS did any type of focus group testing before foisting
it upon us. And, if they did do such testing, who did they get in the focus
groups?

Like many of you, I have used computers for many, many years. (I go back to
the PC-Write for DOS days), and I can honestly say that, over the decades, I
have found very few UI changes that have actually made a difference in
helping me be more productive.

I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor, and I
must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or ribbons; just
keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.

Virgil

[Doug]

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon.

/snip/

Post by Virgil Arrington
I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor, and
I must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or ribbons;
just keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.
Virgil

Sounds like you should find a copy of WordStar!

--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley

[Virgil Arrington]

Jay provided a great response to this thread, but it appears as if he fell
into the trap of hitting "reply" instead of "reply all," so only I got the
benefit of his response. I'm copying it below.

Jay wrote:

My understanding of the original XEROX research is that is for desktop GUI
there is a narrow range of options and criteria to implement a good
interface. What I always understood is that because the why humans
interact with the surroundings and basic physiology of arms, shoulders,
hands, etc. the WIMP based GUIs with menus, icons, windows, and a mouse
are the most practical interfaces. The XEROX conclusions, IMHO, are still
valid today. So the GUI (app or OS) should be very similar. Learning any
"XEROX" style GUI is fairly easy for most users because it feels right.

MS seemed to ignore the XEROX research with the Ribbon and the criticism
of W8 indicates they ignored the research again. I read MS was concerned
with the complexity of the menus in MSO and the fact that most users only
used a fraction of the available commands. Two logic flaws: complex
software will cause complex menus and most users probably only need to use
a fraction of commands. However different users will use a different
combination of commands.
--
Jay Lozier
***@gmail.com


As I think about software evolution, there was little consistency back in
the DOS days. For example, Wordstar had its Ctrl-key combinations that were
hard to learn but, once learned, made touch typists *very* proficient.
WordPerfect preferred the Function key commands.

When Windows came out, it was not immediately embraced. DOS was fast, lean
and light. I recall working very efficiently on a computer with a 10 mg.
hard drive with plenty of room to spare.

One of the Windows selling points was that all of the programs could have a
consistent UI. All programs followed the same basic menu structure (File,
Edit, Format, Tools, etc.). While each program had its own quirks (page
layout under "File"?), the general consistency of menus made programs
relatively easy to figure out.

Users knew that everything could be found *somewhere* in the menu. Yes, more
complex commands may be deeply buried, but that was the nature of the beast.
More often-used commands could be attached to icons streamlining the
process. But, the icon toolbars, while quick and easy, were never intended
to *replace* the menu structure, just supplement it. Toolbars are, by their
nature, very much subject to user preferences. When installing LO, I
immediately customize the toolbars to eliminate icons I never use. That's
okay, because I know *everything* is in the menu structure.

It appears that, with the ribbon, MS has tried to combine the menus and
icons into one structure. But, for me at least, MS has abandoned the very
logical and consistent menu structure that gave Windows its advantage over
the inconsistent UIs of DOS.

(And, Doug, I have tried to load PC-Write onto my computer, but it won't run
on a 64-bit computer. *sigh*)

Virgil

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:39 PM
To: ***@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon.

/snip/

Post by Virgil Arrington
I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor, and
I must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or ribbons;
just keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.
Virgil

Sounds like you should find a copy of WordStar!

--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+***@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
That point keeps coming up but it best said the other way around
80% of MSO almost never gets used.

Then split the remaining 20% up between different sorts of users.  Most people only use the Save button, Bold, Centre, Underline, copy&paste errr that's about it.  Oh, receive email and reply.  More advanced users insert pictures or graphics or go the other way into using spreadsheets and/or maybe know how to start a fresh new email.  So even of that 20% there is a lot of stuff that people don't use or even know about.  It's just that within that 20% some people use some and others use different bits.  That still leaves 80% almost untouched by anyone. 

The way this is generally talked about is that everyone uses different things and so if you take enough people you find that there is an even spread of all parts being used by a roughly equal percentage of people.  However that is NOT what we are seeing.  Think about it this way instead, how many people do you know of that don't know how to make something bold?  Almost everyone knows that, right?  They might manage to fluff it badly but at least they can manage that much.  Now, how many can switch from left to right or fully justified?  Not so many.  Quite a lot of people don't even know what you are talking about or think it looks too strange or 'different' (or cool).  How many people know how to mail-merge?  Not as many as know how to use bold!!

Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 13:44
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
Jay provided a great response to this thread, but it appears as if he fell
into the trap of hitting "reply" instead of "reply all," so only I got the
benefit of his response. I'm copying it below.
My understanding of the original XEROX research is that is for desktop GUI
there is a narrow range of options and criteria to implement a good
interface. What I always understood is that because the why humans
interact with the surroundings and basic physiology of arms, shoulders,
hands, etc. the WIMP based GUIs with menus, icons, windows, and a mouse
are the most practical interfaces. The XEROX conclusions, IMHO, are still
valid today. So the GUI (app or OS) should be very similar. Learning any
"XEROX" style GUI is fairly easy for most users because it feels right.
MS seemed to ignore the XEROX research with the Ribbon and the criticism
of W8 indicates they ignored the research again. I read MS was concerned
with the complexity of the menus in MSO and the fact that most users only
used a fraction of the available commands. Two logic flaws: complex
software will cause complex menus and most users probably only need to use
a fraction of commands. However different users will use a different
combination of commands.
--
Jay Lozier
As I think about software evolution, there was little consistency back in
the DOS days. For example, Wordstar had its Ctrl-key combinations that were
hard to learn but, once learned, made touch typists *very* proficient.
WordPerfect preferred the Function key commands.
When Windows came out, it was not immediately embraced. DOS was fast, lean
and light. I recall working very efficiently on a computer with a 10 mg.
hard drive with plenty of room to spare.
One of the Windows selling points was that all of the programs could have a
consistent UI. All programs followed the same basic menu structure (File,
Edit, Format, Tools, etc.). While each program had its own quirks (page
layout under "File"?), the general consistency of menus made programs
relatively easy to figure out.
Users knew that everything could be found *somewhere* in the menu. Yes, more
complex commands may be deeply buried, but that was the nature of the beast.
More often-used commands could be attached to icons streamlining the
process. But, the icon toolbars, while quick and easy, were never intended
to *replace* the menu structure, just supplement it. Toolbars are, by their
nature, very much subject to user preferences. When installing LO, I
immediately customize the toolbars to eliminate icons I never use. That's
okay, because I know *everything* is in the menu structure.
It appears that, with the ribbon, MS has tried to combine the menus and
icons into one structure. But, for me at least, MS has abandoned the very
logical and consistent menu structure that gave Windows its advantage over
the inconsistent UIs of DOS.
(And, Doug, I have tried to load PC-Write onto my computer, but it won't run
on a 64-bit computer. *sigh*)
Virgil
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon.

/snip/

Post by Virgil Arrington
I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor, and
I must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or ribbons;
just keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.
Virgil

Sounds like you should find a copy of WordStar!
--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Jay Lozier]

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That point keeps coming up but it best said the other way around
80% of MSO almost never gets used.
Then split the remaining 20% up between different sorts of users. Most
people only use the Save button, Bold, Centre, Underline, copy&paste
errr that's about it. Oh, receive email and reply. More advanced users
insert pictures or graphics or go the other way into using spreadsheets
and/or maybe know how to start a fresh new email. So even of that 20%
there is a lot of stuff that people don't use or even know about. It's
just that within that 20% some people use some and others use different
bits. That still leaves 80% almost untouched by anyone.
The way this is generally talked about is that everyone uses different
things and so if you take enough people you find that there is an even
spread of all parts being used by a roughly equal percentage of people.
However that is NOT what we are seeing. Think about it this way
instead, how many people do you know of that don't know how to make
something bold? Almost everyone knows that, right? They might manage
to fluff it badly but at least they can manage that much. Now, how many
can switch from left to right or fully justified? Not so many. Quite a
lot of people don't even know what you are talking about or think it
looks too strange or 'different' (or cool). How many people know how to
mail-merge? Not as many as know how to use bold!!
Regards from
Tom :)

IMHO the percentage of features used by 95% of users on LO or MSO is
probably about 50 to 60% of those available - no research just navel
gazing. I was talking to a colleague on another list about this point. MS
has had a history of adding "features" to MSO that most users either would
never use it or have no idea the feature is there (and probably would
never use it). Part of the problem, particularly for commercial software,
is the true core features of an office suite have been implemented years
ago and only need refining. Tom's example of mail merge has been around
for at least 20 years - I used it with WordPerfect in the mid 90's and it
was not a new feature then. So to entice buyers/users MS and others must
add "features" that sound nice but very few people will ever use.

A related problem is that most users are users. They want to get something
do but do not want to spend a lot of time learning the software beyond a
minimum to do their jobs. So if you asked them to do a mail-merge with LO,
AOO, MSO, etc. you would get a blank stare. They do not know it can be do
and are amazed you can do it.

Post by Tom Davies

________________________________
Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 13:44
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
Jay provided a great response to this thread, but it appears as if he fell
into the trap of hitting "reply" instead of "reply all," so only I got the
benefit of his response. I'm copying it below.
My understanding of the original XEROX research is that is for desktop GUI
there is a narrow range of options and criteria to implement a good
interface. What I always understood is that because the why humans
interact with the surroundings and basic physiology of arms, shoulders,
hands, etc. the WIMP based GUIs with menus, icons, windows, and a mouse
are the most practical interfaces. The XEROX conclusions, IMHO, are still
valid today. So the GUI (app or OS) should be very similar. Learning any
"XEROX" style GUI is fairly easy for most users because it feels right.
MS seemed to ignore the XEROX research with the Ribbon and the criticism
of W8 indicates they ignored the research again. I read MS was concerned
with the complexity of the menus in MSO and the fact that most users only
used a fraction of the available commands. Two logic flaws: complex
software will cause complex menus and most users probably only need to use
a fraction of commands. However different users will use a different
combination of commands.
--
Jay Lozier
As I think about software evolution, there was little consistency back in
the DOS days. For example, Wordstar had its Ctrl-key combinations that were
hard to learn but, once learned, made touch typists *very* proficient.
WordPerfect preferred the Function key commands.
When Windows came out, it was not immediately embraced. DOS was fast, lean
and light. I recall working very efficiently on a computer with a 10 mg.
hard drive with plenty of room to spare.
One of the Windows selling points was that all of the programs could have a
consistent UI. All programs followed the same basic menu structure (File,
Edit, Format, Tools, etc.). While each program had its own quirks (page
layout under "File"?), the general consistency of menus made programs
relatively easy to figure out.
Users knew that everything could be found *somewhere* in the menu. Yes, more
complex commands may be deeply buried, but that was the nature of the beast.
More often-used commands could be attached to icons streamlining the
process. But, the icon toolbars, while quick and easy, were never intended
to *replace* the menu structure, just supplement it. Toolbars are, by their
nature, very much subject to user preferences. When installing LO, I
immediately customize the toolbars to eliminate icons I never use. That's
okay, because I know *everything* is in the menu structure.
It appears that, with the ribbon, MS has tried to combine the menus and
icons into one structure. But, for me at least, MS has abandoned the very
logical and consistent menu structure that gave Windows its advantage over
the inconsistent UIs of DOS.
(And, Doug, I have tried to load PC-Write onto my computer, but it won't run
on a 64-bit computer. *sigh*)
Virgil
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon.

/snip/

Post by Virgil Arrington
I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor, and
I must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or ribbons;
just keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.
Virgil

Sounds like you should find a copy of WordStar!
--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

--
Jay Lozier
***@gmail.com

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:16:42 -0400, Tom Davies

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That point keeps coming up but it best said the other way around
80% of MSO almost never gets used.
Then split the remaining 20% up between different sorts of users.
Most people only use the Save button, Bold, Centre, Underline,
copy&paste errr that's about it. Oh, receive email and reply. More
advanced users insert pictures or graphics or go the other way into
using spreadsheets and/or maybe know how to start a fresh new
email. So even of that 20% there is a lot of stuff that people
don't use or even know about. It's just that within that 20% some
people use some and others use different bits. That still leaves 80%
almost untouched by anyone.
The way this is generally talked about is that everyone uses
different things and so if you take enough people you find that there
is an even spread of all parts being used by a roughly equal
percentage of people. However that is NOT what we are seeing. Think
about it this way instead, how many people do you know of that don't
know how to make something bold? Almost everyone knows that, right?
They might manage to fluff it badly but at least they can manage that
much. Now, how many can switch from left to right or fully
justified? Not so many. Quite a lot of people don't even know what
you are talking about or think it looks too strange or 'different'
(or cool). How many people know how to mail-merge? Not as many as
know how to use bold!!
Regards from
Tom :)

IMHO the percentage of features used by 95% of users on LO or MSO is
probably about 50 to 60% of those available - no research just navel
gazing. I was talking to a colleague on another list about this point.
MS has had a history of adding "features" to MSO that most users
either would never use it or have no idea the feature is there (and
probably would never use it). Part of the problem, particularly for
commercial software, is the true core features of an office suite have
been implemented years ago and only need refining. Tom's example of
mail merge has been around for at least 20 years - I used it with
WordPerfect in the mid 90's and it was not a new feature then. So to
entice buyers/users MS and others must add "features" that sound nice
but very few people will ever use.

The last time I heard of a MSO figure, it was:
95% of the MSO users uses less than 5% of the features. That was mostly
for Word and Excel users.
I have heard other figures like 90% uses 10%, but the highest figure was
the 15% of the features of Word and Excel combined.

All of the rest are for the "power users" and need a good and detailed
book to teach you - step by step - how to use these "complex power user"
features and options.

For all of the people I have dealt with, none would be called a power
user by any means.

I remember seeing a magazine advertisement for MSO, from several years
ago, that stated that they "added over 1,000 new and improved feature"
over the previous version. That may have been for the MSO 2003
version. MSO-2003 was the last one I bought, with the first being
MSO-97 I believe. How many people would want to learn 1,000 features
for their office package? I may use 100 +/- features of LO and that is
more than enough to do what I need to do.

A related problem is that most users are users. They want to get
something do but do not want to spend a lot of time learning the
software beyond a minimum to do their jobs. So if you asked them to do
a mail-merge with LO, AOO, MSO, etc. you would get a blank stare. They
do not know it can be do and are amazed you can do it.

I use to deal with mail-merging lists with a form document, but I have
not done that for a long time.

Post by Tom Davies

________________________________
Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 13:44
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO
Jay provided a great response to this thread, but it appears as if he fell
into the trap of hitting "reply" instead of "reply all," so only I got the
benefit of his response. I'm copying it below.
My understanding of the original XEROX research is that is for desktop GUI
there is a narrow range of options and criteria to implement a good
interface. What I always understood is that because the why humans
interact with the surroundings and basic physiology of arms, shoulders,
hands, etc. the WIMP based GUIs with menus, icons, windows, and a mouse
are the most practical interfaces. The XEROX conclusions, IMHO, are still
valid today. So the GUI (app or OS) should be very similar. Learning any
"XEROX" style GUI is fairly easy for most users because it feels right.
MS seemed to ignore the XEROX research with the Ribbon and the criticism
of W8 indicates they ignored the research again. I read MS was concerned
with the complexity of the menus in MSO and the fact that most users only
used a fraction of the available commands. Two logic flaws: complex
software will cause complex menus and most users probably only need to use
a fraction of commands. However different users will use a different
combination of commands.
--
Jay Lozier
As I think about software evolution, there was little consistency back in
the DOS days. For example, Wordstar had its Ctrl-key combinations that were
hard to learn but, once learned, made touch typists *very* proficient.
WordPerfect preferred the Function key commands.
When Windows came out, it was not immediately embraced. DOS was fast, lean
and light. I recall working very efficiently on a computer with a 10 mg.
hard drive with plenty of room to spare.
One of the Windows selling points was that all of the programs could have a
consistent UI. All programs followed the same basic menu structure (File,
Edit, Format, Tools, etc.). While each program had its own quirks (page
layout under "File"?), the general consistency of menus made programs
relatively easy to figure out.
Users knew that everything could be found *somewhere* in the menu. Yes, more
complex commands may be deeply buried, but that was the nature of the beast.
More often-used commands could be attached to icons streamlining the
process. But, the icon toolbars, while quick and easy, were never intended
to *replace* the menu structure, just supplement it. Toolbars are, by their
nature, very much subject to user preferences. When installing LO, I
immediately customize the toolbars to eliminate icons I never use. That's
okay, because I know *everything* is in the menu structure.
It appears that, with the ribbon, MS has tried to combine the menus and
icons into one structure. But, for me at least, MS has abandoned the very
logical and consistent menu structure that gave Windows its
advantage over
the inconsistent UIs of DOS.
(And, Doug, I have tried to load PC-Write onto my computer, but it won't run
on a 64-bit computer. *sigh*)
Virgil
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon.

/snip/

Post by Virgil Arrington
I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor, and
I must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or ribbons;
just keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.
Virgil

Sounds like you should find a copy of WordStar!
--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Jay Lozier]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:04:20 -0400, Kracked_P_P---webmaster

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:16:42 -0400, Tom Davies

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That point keeps coming up but it best said the other way around
80% of MSO almost never gets used.
Then split the remaining 20% up between different sorts of users.
Most people only use the Save button, Bold, Centre, Underline,
copy&paste errr that's about it. Oh, receive email and reply. More
advanced users insert pictures or graphics or go the other way into
using spreadsheets and/or maybe know how to start a fresh new email.
So even of that 20% there is a lot of stuff that people don't use or
even know about. It's just that within that 20% some people use some
and others use different bits. That still leaves 80% almost untouched
by anyone.
The way this is generally talked about is that everyone uses different
things and so if you take enough people you find that there is an even
spread of all parts being used by a roughly equal percentage of
people. However that is NOT what we are seeing. Think about it this
way instead, how many people do you know of that don't know how to
make something bold? Almost everyone knows that, right? They might
manage to fluff it badly but at least they can manage that much. Now,
how many can switch from left to right or fully justified? Not so
many. Quite a lot of people don't even know what you are talking about
or think it looks too strange or 'different' (or cool). How many
people know how to mail-merge? Not as many as know how to use bold!!
Regards from
Tom :)

IMHO the percentage of features used by 95% of users on LO or MSO is
probably about 50 to 60% of those available - no research just navel
gazing. I was talking to a colleague on another list about this point.
MS has had a history of adding "features" to MSO that most users either
would never use it or have no idea the feature is there (and probably
would never use it). Part of the problem, particularly for commercial
software, is the true core features of an office suite have been
implemented years ago and only need refining. Tom's example of mail
merge has been around for at least 20 years - I used it with
WordPerfect in the mid 90's and it was not a new feature then. So to
entice buyers/users MS and others must add "features" that sound nice
but very few people will ever use.

95% of the MSO users uses less than 5% of the features. That was mostly
for Word and Excel users.
I have heard other figures like 90% uses 10%, but the highest figure was
the 15% of the features of Word and Excel combined.
All of the rest are for the "power users" and need a good and detailed
book to teach you - step by step - how to use these "complex power user"
features and options.
For all of the people I have dealt with, none would be called a power
user by any means.
I remember seeing a magazine advertisement for MSO, from several years
ago, that stated that they "added over 1,000 new and improved feature"
over the previous version. That may have been for the MSO 2003
version. MSO-2003 was the last one I bought, with the first being
MSO-97 I believe. How many people would want to learn 1,000 features
for their office package? I may use 100 +/- features of LO and that is
more than enough to do what I need to do.

I think there is a basic agreement that at least 25% of the features in
MSO could be eliminated and no one would notice. I would not be surprised
if LO and AOO could eliminate about 20% of the features without anyone
noticing. I am suggesting any features be eliminated just that all office
suites could probably go on a feature diet and actually improve their
products. Just that some need a more rigorous diet than others.

I think what happens is someone thinks something would be a nice feature.
They ask a focus group (or survey) about it and the group says it sounds
good. But what is never asked is would you do actually miss the feature or
use the feature if it was present. So the feature gets added.

The sense I get from the list is that feature set of MSO 2000 or XP hits
the sweet spot for almost all users. The later MSO versions do not really
add features the vast majority of users need, care about, or truly want.
Or the feature can easily be implemented by other methods external to the
suite. For example file sharing and collaboration with remote users can be
done using a variety tools external to MSO or LO. I suspect that most if
asked would say it is a good feature to include. But if you ask would they
ever use it, the answer is no. In fact it can be fairly easily use
external tools.

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster

A related problem is that most users are users. They want to get
something do but do not want to spend a lot of time learning the
software beyond a minimum to do their jobs. So if you asked them to do
a mail-merge with LO, AOO, MSO, etc. you would get a blank stare. They
do not know it can be do and are amazed you can do it.

I use to deal with mail-merging lists with a form document, but I have
not done that for a long time.

Post by Tom Davies

________________________________
Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 13:44
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO
Jay provided a great response to this thread, but it appears as if he fell
into the trap of hitting "reply" instead of "reply all," so only I got the
benefit of his response. I'm copying it below.
My understanding of the original XEROX research is that is for desktop GUI
there is a narrow range of options and criteria to implement a good
interface. What I always understood is that because the why humans
interact with the surroundings and basic physiology of arms, shoulders,
hands, etc. the WIMP based GUIs with menus, icons, windows, and a mouse
are the most practical interfaces. The XEROX conclusions, IMHO, are still
valid today. So the GUI (app or OS) should be very similar. Learning any
"XEROX" style GUI is fairly easy for most users because it feels right.
MS seemed to ignore the XEROX research with the Ribbon and the criticism
of W8 indicates they ignored the research again. I read MS was concerned
with the complexity of the menus in MSO and the fact that most users only
used a fraction of the available commands. Two logic flaws: complex
software will cause complex menus and most users probably only need to use
a fraction of commands. However different users will use a different
combination of commands.
-- Jay Lozier
As I think about software evolution, there was little consistency back in
the DOS days. For example, Wordstar had its Ctrl-key combinations that were
hard to learn but, once learned, made touch typists *very* proficient.
WordPerfect preferred the Function key commands.
When Windows came out, it was not immediately embraced. DOS was fast, lean
and light. I recall working very efficiently on a computer with a 10 mg.
hard drive with plenty of room to spare.
One of the Windows selling points was that all of the programs could have a
consistent UI. All programs followed the same basic menu structure (File,
Edit, Format, Tools, etc.). While each program had its own quirks (page
layout under "File"?), the general consistency of menus made programs
relatively easy to figure out.
Users knew that everything could be found *somewhere* in the menu. Yes, more
complex commands may be deeply buried, but that was the nature of the beast.
More often-used commands could be attached to icons streamlining the
process. But, the icon toolbars, while quick and easy, were never intended
to *replace* the menu structure, just supplement it. Toolbars are, by their
nature, very much subject to user preferences. When installing LO, I
immediately customize the toolbars to eliminate icons I never use. That's
okay, because I know *everything* is in the menu structure.
It appears that, with the ribbon, MS has tried to combine the menus and
icons into one structure. But, for me at least, MS has abandoned the very
logical and consistent menu structure that gave Windows its advantage over
the inconsistent UIs of DOS.
(And, Doug, I have tried to load PC-Write onto my computer, but it won't run
on a 64-bit computer. *sigh*)
Virgil
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon.

/snip/

Post by Virgil Arrington
I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor, and
I must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or ribbons;
just keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.
Virgil

Sounds like you should find a copy of WordStar!
--doug
-- Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both
sides.
--A.M.Greeley
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

--
Jay Lozier
***@gmail.com

[Jean-Francois Nifenecker]

Hi,

jumping in the bandwaggon..

Post by Jay Lozier
I think there is a basic agreement that at least 25% of the features in
MSO could be eliminated and no one would notice. I would not be
surprised if LO and AOO could eliminate about 20% of the features
without anyone noticing. I am suggesting any features be eliminated just
that all office suites could probably go on a feature diet and actually
improve their products. Just that some need a more rigorous diet than
others.

An idea I've been having for 20+ years now is: how about an office
automation tool (wordprocessor, spreadsheet, whatever) that would come
with the bare minimal features (define: bare minimal) and could be
"enhanced" by adding features through a plugin system à la LibreOffice
extensions?

This way, anyone could tailor the software to their exact needs and the
tools devs would focus on dedicated areas to add features.

[Johnny Rosenberg]

Post by Jean-Francois Nifenecker
Hi,
jumping in the bandwaggon..

Post by Jay Lozier
I think there is a basic agreement that at least 25% of the features in
MSO could be eliminated and no one would notice. I would not be
surprised if LO and AOO could eliminate about 20% of the features
without anyone noticing. I am suggesting any features be eliminated just
that all office suites could probably go on a feature diet and actually
improve their products. Just that some need a more rigorous diet than
others.

An idea I've been having for 20+ years now is: how about an office
automation tool (wordprocessor, spreadsheet, whatever) that would come with
the bare minimal features (define: bare minimal) and could be "enhanced" by
adding features through a plugin system à la LibreOffice extensions?
This way, anyone could tailor the software to their exact needs and the
tools devs would focus on dedicated areas to add features.
--
Jean-Francois Nifenecker, Bordeaux

I can see a few problems with that, but I still agree it could be a good idea.
I'm also not sure how easy it would be for the developers to achieve this.
It should be easy to find and install the plug-ins without leaving the
program, I think.


Johnny Rosenberg

[Marc Grober]

Post by Jean-Francois Nifenecker
An idea I've been having for 20+ years now is: how about an office
automation tool (wordprocessor, spreadsheet, whatever) that would come
with the bare minimal features (define: bare minimal) and could be
"enhanced" by adding features through a plugin system à la LibreOffice
extensions?
This way, anyone could tailor the software to their exact needs and
the tools devs would focus on dedicated areas to add features.

seems to me this is what Borland tried to do with Sprint.....

for most purposes I would probably be satisfied with wordstar - much
bloat is attached to go going from simple word processing to what passed
for desktop publishing 20 years ago

[Jay Lozier]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:59:13 -0400, Jean-Francois Nifenecker

Post by Jean-Francois Nifenecker
Hi,
jumping in the bandwaggon..

Post by Jay Lozier
I think there is a basic agreement that at least 25% of the features in
MSO could be eliminated and no one would notice. I would not be
surprised if LO and AOO could eliminate about 20% of the features
without anyone noticing. I am suggesting any features be eliminated just
that all office suites could probably go on a feature diet and actually
improve their products. Just that some need a more rigorous diet than
others.

An idea I've been having for 20+ years now is: how about an office
automation tool (wordprocessor, spreadsheet, whatever) that would come
with the bare minimal features (define: bare minimal) and could be
"enhanced" by adding features through a plugin system à la LibreOffice
extensions?
This way, anyone could tailor the software to their exact needs and the
tools devs would focus on dedicated areas to add features.

I like the concept that are core features combined with extensions/plugins
to add little used features. Also, extensions/plugins would allow the dev
team to focus on the core code and not run done every minor feature that
is wanted. And the extenstions/plugins could be developed and maintained
by others who are not part of the dev team.

This requires determining what are truly core features and have a robust
API/SDK to make extension development more robust.
--
Jay Lozier
***@gmail.com

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
Isn't it called Abiword?
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 18:14
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:59:13 -0400, Jean-Francois Nifenecker 

Post by Jean-Francois Nifenecker
Hi,
jumping in the bandwaggon..

Post by Jay Lozier
I think there is a basic agreement that at least 25% of the features in
MSO could be eliminated and no one would notice. I would not be
surprised if LO and AOO could eliminate about 20% of the features
without anyone noticing. I am suggesting any features be eliminated just
that all office suites could probably go on a feature diet and actually
improve their products. Just that some need a more rigorous diet than
others.

An idea I've been having for 20+ years now is: how about an office 
automation tool (wordprocessor, spreadsheet, whatever) that would come 
with the bare minimal features (define: bare minimal) and could be 
"enhanced" by adding features through a plugin system à la LibreOffice 
extensions?
This way, anyone could tailor the software to their exact needs and the 
tools devs would focus on dedicated areas to add features.

I like the concept that are core features combined with extensions/plugins 
to add little used features. Also, extensions/plugins would allow the dev 
team to focus on the core code and not run done every minor feature that 
is wanted. And the extenstions/plugins could be developed and maintained 
by others who are not part of the dev team.
This requires determining what are truly core features and have a robust 
API/SDK to make extension development more robust.
--
Jay Lozier
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Ken Springer]

Post by Jay Lozier
I like the concept that are core features combined with extensions/plugins
to add little used features. Also, extensions/plugins would allow the dev
team to focus on the core code and not run done every minor feature that
is wanted. And the extenstions/plugins could be developed and maintained
by others who are not part of the dev team.

There is a downside to the extensions/plugins idea. It's who creates them.

I run into this problem all the time with Firefox and Thunderbird. Many
of the extensions and plugins are developed by folks outside of Mozilla.
You find X number of them that allow you to add specific features that
make the program operate the way you like, do what you want, etc.

Then, the developers make changes to the core code, breaking X number of
your extensions and plugins. One or more of those extensions/plugins
were developed by 3rd party individuals who no longer support the
extensions, for whatever reason.

Now, your workflow/habits start to get screwed. Things you used to do,
you can no longer do. Features that used to be easy for you, now become
a pain. You have to find another way to get the same job done. Or, you
can't do it at all. :-(
--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.3.3

[Rich Lewis]

This is very true. The only way to ensure compatibility is if you control all the extensions, which would be a nightmare.

Sticking with the paradigm of upgrading software breaks a lot of uncontrolled X, Microsoft did this on a larger scale. When they introduced Internet Explorer 10 they broke X number of websites (including our gradebook website). The fix is simple, just click the compatibility icon, but try explaining that to hundreds of parents of students who don't even know the difference between Chrome and Internet Explorer.

Anyway, my point is that complaints will pile up. Like it or not, breaking plugins and extensions will make people feel less secure with LibreOffice. People always reach higher up on the chain for something to blame.



Sent from my iPad

Post by Ken Springer

Post by Jay Lozier
I like the concept that are core features combined with extensions/plugins
to add little used features. Also, extensions/plugins would allow the dev
team to focus on the core code and not run done every minor feature that
is wanted. And the extenstions/plugins could be developed and maintained
by others who are not part of the dev team.

There is a downside to the extensions/plugins idea. It's who creates them.
I run into this problem all the time with Firefox and Thunderbird. Many of the extensions and plugins are developed by folks outside of Mozilla. You find X number of them that allow you to add specific features that make the program operate the way you like, do what you want, etc.
Then, the developers make changes to the core code, breaking X number of your extensions and plugins. One or more of those extensions/plugins were developed by 3rd party individuals who no longer support the extensions, for whatever reason.
Now, your workflow/habits start to get screwed. Things you used to do, you can no longer do. Features that used to be easy for you, now become a pain. You have to find another way to get the same job done. Or, you can't do it at all. :-(
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.3.3
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
There could be a core group of Extensions/Add-ons that are maintained as part of the program.  Official add-ons.  Then a bunch of 3rd party or experimental ones.  Encourage all to be made as OpenSource so that if/when the original maintainer vanishes then others could take over. 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2013, 18:31
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
This is very true.  The only way to ensure compatibility is if you control all the extensions, which would be a nightmare.
Sticking with the paradigm of upgrading software breaks a lot of uncontrolled X, Microsoft did this on a larger scale.  When they introduced Internet Explorer 10 they broke X number of websites (including our gradebook website). The fix is simple, just click the compatibility icon, but try explaining that to hundreds of parents of students who don't even know the difference between Chrome and Internet Explorer. 
Anyway, my point is that complaints will pile up.  Like it or not, breaking plugins and extensions will make people feel less secure with LibreOffice.  People always reach higher up on the chain for something to blame.
Sent from my iPad

Post by Jay Lozier
I like the concept that are core features combined with extensions/plugins
to add little used features. Also, extensions/plugins would allow the dev
team to focus on the core code and not run done every minor feature that
is wanted. And the extenstions/plugins could be developed and maintained
by others who are not part of the dev team.

There is a downside to the extensions/plugins idea.  It's who creates them.
I run into this problem all the time with Firefox and Thunderbird.  Many of the extensions and plugins are developed by folks outside of Mozilla.  You find X number of them that allow you to add specific features that make the program operate the way you like, do what you want, etc.
Then, the developers make changes to the core code, breaking X number of your extensions and plugins.  One or more of those extensions/plugins were developed by 3rd party individuals who no longer support the extensions, for whatever reason.
Now, your workflow/habits start to get screwed.  Things you used to do, you can no longer do.  Features that used to be easy for you, now become a pain.  You have to find another way to get the same job done.  Or, you can't do it at all.  :-(
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.3.3
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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

[Ken Springer]

Hi:)
There could be a core group of Extensions/Add-ons that are maintained as part of the program. Official add-ons. Then a bunch of 3rd party or experimental ones. Encourage all to be made as OpenSource so that if/when the original maintainer vanishes then others could take over.
Regards from
Tom:)

This assumes there will be someone interested in taking the extensions over.

If you were at 3rd party developer, how would you feel about competing
with "official" add-ons, especially if the one you wrote was superior?
If it's not official, maybe there's something wrong with it.
--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.3.3

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
Hmmm, i was thinking of the official ones covering certain fairly commonly used functionality and the 3rd party ones tending to go for interesting oddities.  But if a 3rd party one was directly competing with an official one and doing it better then it would be great to have some mechanism for it to swap places and become the official one. 

Anyway, all this is idle speculation.  Possibly a great idea in theory but unlikely to happen. 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2013, 21:43
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

Post by Tom Davies
Hi:)
There could be a core group of Extensions/Add-ons that are maintained as part of the program.  Official add-ons.  Then a bunch of 3rd party or experimental ones.  Encourage all to be made as OpenSource so that if/when the original maintainer vanishes then others could take over.
Regards from
Tom:)

This assumes there will be someone interested in taking the extensions over.
If you were at 3rd party developer, how would you feel about competing
with "official" add-ons, especially if the one you wrote was superior?
If it's not official, maybe there's something wrong with it.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.3.3
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Ken Springer]

Hi :)
Hmmm, i was thinking of the official ones covering certain fairly commonly used functionality and the 3rd party ones tending to go for interesting oddities. But if a 3rd party one was directly competing with an official one and doing it better then it would be great to have some mechanism for it to swap places and become the official one.

For me, the "fairly common" features are not what I'm looking for. Why?
The fairly common ones tend not to push the envelope presenting new
features, ideas, and methods of working with XXXXXXXXXXX.

And the very reason I'm sitting here actually reading the 540 page
Scrivener manual! LOL
--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.3.3

[Mirosław Zalewski]

Post by Rich Lewis
When they introduced Internet Explorer 10 they broke X number of websites
(including our gradebook website).

These websites were broken in the first place. Just stick to web standards and
you won't have any problems with IE10.

Post by Rich Lewis
The fix is simple, just click the compatibility icon

Just put this:
<meta http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="IE=9">
in your <head>.
More about it:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc288325(v=vs.85).aspx
--
Best regards
Mirosław Zalewski

[Mirosław Zalewski]

On 08/06/2013 at 18:59, "Jean-Francois Nifenecker" <jean-

Post by Jean-Francois Nifenecker
An idea I've been having for 20+ years now is: how about an office
automation tool (wordprocessor, spreadsheet, whatever) that would come
with the bare minimal features (define: bare minimal) and could be
"enhanced" by adding features through a plugin system à la LibreOffice
extensions?

I believe they are called TeX (for word processing) and R (for
calculations[1]).

But there is a reason they never get substantial mainstream market share. Most
users simply do not care if software is bloated and slow as long as it gets
work done. Only professionals are ever interested in investing time into
adjustments that will benefit them in longer run.

[1] Yes, I know that calling R "program for calculations" is radical
oversimplification.
--
Best regards
Mirosław Zalewski

[Johnny Rosenberg]

Ok, sorry. Did it again. Replied privately, that is. Here's to the list:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Johnny Rosenberg <***@gmail.com>
Date: 2013/6/8
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO

Post by Jay Lozier
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:04:20 -0400, Kracked_P_P---webmaster

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster

Post by Jay Lozier

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That point keeps coming up but it best said the other way around
80% of MSO almost never gets used.
Then split the remaining 20% up between different sorts of users. Most
people only use the Save button, Bold, Centre, Underline, copy&paste errr
that's about it. Oh, receive email and reply. More advanced users insert
pictures or graphics or go the other way into using spreadsheets and/or
maybe know how to start a fresh new email. So even of that 20% there is a
lot of stuff that people don't use or even know about. It's just that
within that 20% some people use some and others use different bits. That
still leaves 80% almost untouched by anyone.
The way this is generally talked about is that everyone uses different
things and so if you take enough people you find that there is an even
spread of all parts being used by a roughly equal percentage of people.
However that is NOT what we are seeing. Think about it this way instead,
how many people do you know of that don't know how to make something bold?
Almost everyone knows that, right? They might manage to fluff it badly but
at least they can manage that much. Now, how many can switch from left to
right or fully justified? Not so many. Quite a lot of people don't even
know what you are talking about or think it looks too strange or 'different'
(or cool). How many people know how to mail-merge? Not as many as know how
to use bold!!
Regards from
Tom :)

IMHO the percentage of features used by 95% of users on LO or MSO is
probably about 50 to 60% of those available - no research just navel gazing.
I was talking to a colleague on another list about this point. MS has had a
history of adding "features" to MSO that most users either would never use
it or have no idea the feature is there (and probably would never use it).
Part of the problem, particularly for commercial software, is the true core
features of an office suite have been implemented years ago and only need
refining. Tom's example of mail merge has been around for at least 20 years
- I used it with WordPerfect in the mid 90's and it was not a new feature
then. So to entice buyers/users MS and others must add "features" that sound
nice but very few people will ever use.

95% of the MSO users uses less than 5% of the features. That was mostly
for Word and Excel users.
I have heard other figures like 90% uses 10%, but the highest figure was
the 15% of the features of Word and Excel combined.
All of the rest are for the "power users" and need a good and detailed
book to teach you - step by step - how to use these "complex power user"
features and options.
For all of the people I have dealt with, none would be called a power user
by any means.
I remember seeing a magazine advertisement for MSO, from several years
ago, that stated that they "added over 1,000 new and improved feature" over
the previous version. That may have been for the MSO 2003 version.
MSO-2003 was the last one I bought, with the first being MSO-97 I believe.
How many people would want to learn 1,000 features for their office package?
I may use 100 +/- features of LO and that is more than enough to do what I
need to do.

I think there is a basic agreement that at least 25% of the features in MSO
could be eliminated and no one would notice. I would not be surprised if LO
and AOO could eliminate about 20% of the features without anyone noticing. I
am suggesting any features be eliminated just that all office suites could
probably go on a feature diet and actually improve their products. Just that
some need a more rigorous diet than others.

I wanted to create a spreadsheet a while ago, that was a little less
complicated than what I usually do, so I though that I could use
Gnumeric instead of LibreOffice/Apache OpenOffice Calc. It wasn't long
before I ran into the wall. I found its limitations surprisingly fast.
What are you supposed to use that crap for? That definitely beats me.
Maybe it's not the same thing with AbiWord, I don't know, I never use
word processors. Or almost never, anyway. When I write, I usually
write in mailing lists or forums, or in text editors (scripting or
programming – not that I am any good at it, though).


Johnny Rosenberg

Post by Jay Lozier
I think what happens is someone thinks something would be a nice feature.
They ask a focus group (or survey) about it and the group says it sounds
good. But what is never asked is would you do actually miss the feature or
use the feature if it was present. So the feature gets added.
The sense I get from the list is that feature set of MSO 2000 or XP hits the
sweet spot for almost all users. The later MSO versions do not really add
features the vast majority of users need, care about, or truly want. Or the
feature can easily be implemented by other methods external to the suite.
For example file sharing and collaboration with remote users can be done
using a variety tools external to MSO or LO. I suspect that most if asked
would say it is a good feature to include. But if you ask would they ever
use it, the answer is no. In fact it can be fairly easily use external
tools.

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster

Post by Jay Lozier
A related problem is that most users are users. They want to get
something do but do not want to spend a lot of time learning the software
beyond a minimum to do their jobs. So if you asked them to do a mail-merge
with LO, AOO, MSO, etc. you would get a blank stare. They do not know it can
be do and are amazed you can do it.

I use to deal with mail-merging lists with a form document, but I have not
done that for a long time.

Post by Jay Lozier

Post by Tom Davies

________________________________
Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 13:44
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO
Jay provided a great response to this thread, but it appears as if he fell
into the trap of hitting "reply" instead of "reply all," so only I got the
benefit of his response. I'm copying it below.
My understanding of the original XEROX research is that is for desktop GUI
there is a narrow range of options and criteria to implement a good
interface. What I always understood is that because the why humans
interact with the surroundings and basic physiology of arms, shoulders,
hands, etc. the WIMP based GUIs with menus, icons, windows, and a mouse
are the most practical interfaces. The XEROX conclusions, IMHO, are still
valid today. So the GUI (app or OS) should be very similar. Learning any
"XEROX" style GUI is fairly easy for most users because it feels right.
MS seemed to ignore the XEROX research with the Ribbon and the criticism
of W8 indicates they ignored the research again. I read MS was concerned
with the complexity of the menus in MSO and the fact that most users only
used a fraction of the available commands. Two logic flaws: complex
software will cause complex menus and most users probably only need to use
a fraction of commands. However different users will use a different
combination of commands.
-- Jay Lozier
As I think about software evolution, there was little consistency back in
the DOS days. For example, Wordstar had its Ctrl-key combinations that were
hard to learn but, once learned, made touch typists *very* proficient.
WordPerfect preferred the Function key commands.
When Windows came out, it was not immediately embraced. DOS was fast, lean
and light. I recall working very efficiently on a computer with a 10 mg.
hard drive with plenty of room to spare.
One of the Windows selling points was that all of the programs could have a
consistent UI. All programs followed the same basic menu structure (File,
Edit, Format, Tools, etc.). While each program had its own quirks (page
layout under "File"?), the general consistency of menus made programs
relatively easy to figure out.
Users knew that everything could be found *somewhere* in the menu. Yes, more
complex commands may be deeply buried, but that was the nature of the beast.
More often-used commands could be attached to icons streamlining the
process. But, the icon toolbars, while quick and easy, were never intended
to *replace* the menu structure, just supplement it. Toolbars are, by their
nature, very much subject to user preferences. When installing LO, I
immediately customize the toolbars to eliminate icons I never use. That's
okay, because I know *everything* is in the menu structure.
It appears that, with the ribbon, MS has tried to combine the menus and
icons into one structure. But, for me at least, MS has abandoned the very
logical and consistent menu structure that gave Windows its advantage over
the inconsistent UIs of DOS.
(And, Doug, I have tried to load PC-Write onto my computer, but it won't run
on a 64-bit computer. *sigh*)
Virgil
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon.

/snip/

Post by Virgil Arrington
I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor, and
I must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or ribbons;
just keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.
Virgil

Sounds like you should find a copy of WordStar!
--doug
-- Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both
sides.
--A.M.Greeley
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

--
Jay Lozier
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Doug]

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That point keeps coming up but it best said the other way around
80% of MSO almost never gets used.

/snip/

Post by Tom Davies
How many people know how to mail-merge? Not as many as know how to use
bold!!
Regards from
Tom :)

What the heck is a mail merge? I use Thunderbird, i wouldn't have any idea
how to do any kind of mail in a word processor. And I don't know why I'd
ever
want to.--doug

[Jay Lozier]

Post by Doug

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That point keeps coming up but it best said the other way around
80% of MSO almost never gets used.

/snip/

Post by Tom Davies
How many people know how to mail-merge? Not as many as know how to use
bold!!
Regards from
Tom :)

What the heck is a mail merge? I use Thunderbird, i wouldn't have any idea
how to do any kind of mail in a word processor. And I don't know why I'd
ever
want to.--doug

Mail-merge is using a Write document as template and inserting data into
various fields in the template from a spreadsheet, table, or database. The
final set of documents can be mailed or more rarely emailed to the
recipients.
--
Jay Lozier
***@gmail.com

[Felmon Davis]

Post by Doug

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
That point keeps coming up but it best said the other way around
80% of MSO almost never gets used.

/snip/

Post by Tom Davies
How many people know how to mail-merge? Not as many as know how to use
bold!!
Regards from
Tom :)

What the heck is a mail merge? I use Thunderbird, i wouldn't have any idea
how to do any kind of mail in a word processor. And I don't know why I'd
ever
want to.--doug

not knowing what it is, it's understandable why you'd not know why
you'd want to. <g>

you want to send mail (usually printed stuff) to 1000 individuals but
personalized so each letter has the individual's name, address,
perhaps a personal greeting like "good morning, doug!"

you can modify each letter by hand a thousand times or use mail merge.

I would love to do it, also for emails, but for my purposes I probably
need to set up a database instead.

F.

[Jean-Francois Nifenecker]

Post by Doug
What the heck is a mail merge? I use Thunderbird, i wouldn't have any idea
how to do any kind of mail in a word processor. And I don't know why I'd
ever want to.

Say you want to send an invitation by mail to your 10.000 friends. You
simply write the letter once with "holes" within. Then you merge (hence
the name) the letter and the missing data which is stored in a seperate
"database" (LibO uses the "datasource" term). As a result you get 10.000
different letters, from just one.

Of course, a private person might not use that feature frequently, but
any company which wants to advertise does this very often.

[Johnny Rosenberg]

Post by Jean-Francois Nifenecker

Post by Doug
What the heck is a mail merge? I use Thunderbird, i wouldn't have any idea
how to do any kind of mail in a word processor. And I don't know why I'd
ever want to.

Say you want to send an invitation by mail to your 10.000 friends. You
simply write the letter once with "holes" within. Then you merge (hence the
name) the letter and the missing data which is stored in a seperate
"database" (LibO uses the "datasource" term). As a result you get 10.000
different letters, from just one.
Of course, a private person might not use that feature frequently, but any
company which wants to advertise does this very often.

Especially if we talk about 10 000 friends. I don't even know ig I met
10 000 people all together in my whole life yet… I think I have like
10 friends…


Johnny Rosenberg

Post by Jean-Francois Nifenecker
--
Jean-Francois Nifenecker, Bordeaux
--
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Doug]

Post by Johnny Rosenberg

Post by Jean-Francois Nifenecker

Post by Doug
What the heck is a mail merge? I use Thunderbird, i wouldn't have any idea
how to do any kind of mail in a word processor. And I don't know why I'd
ever want to.

Say you want to send an invitation by mail to your 10.000 friends. You
simply write the letter once with "holes" within. Then you merge (hence the
name) the letter and the missing data which is stored in a seperate
"database" (LibO uses the "datasource" term). As a result you get 10.000
different letters, from just one.
Of course, a private person might not use that feature frequently, but any
company which wants to advertise does this very often.

Especially if we talk about 10 000 friends. I don't even know ig I met
10 000 people all together in my whole life yet… I think I have like
10 friends…
Johnny Rosenberg

Thanx everybody. Now I know what mailmerge is. I don't think I would
ever need it. If I send mail to more than 5 people at once it would be a
lot.

--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley

[T. R. Valentine]

Post by Virgil Arrington
As I think about software evolution, there was little consistency back in
the DOS days. For example, Wordstar had its Ctrl-key combinations that were
hard to learn but, once learned, made touch typists *very* proficient.
WordPerfect preferred the Function key commands.

Yes, but people who used WordPerfect extensively (as I did in the
early 1990s) knew all 48 functions (plain function, Shift+function,
Alt+function, Ctrl+function) and were, indeed, very proficient. Even
though I only typed about 90 wpm, I could crank out stuff as quickly
as much faster typists.

Because I knew the function keys, I did not use WordPerfect's menu
card which was designed to sit on the top of the keyboard over the
function keys — but when I was away from my desk people would use my
PC for printing because I had a faster and nicer printer and would
bring their menu card so they could print and whatever else they
needed to do .... and frequently leave it behind. I'd return to my
desk, find the menu card and toss it in the overhead bin — had quite a
collection of those things!

Post by Virgil Arrington
One of the Windows selling points was that all of the programs could have a
consistent UI. All programs followed the same basic menu structure (File,
Edit, Format, Tools, etc.). While each program had its own quirks (page
layout under "File"?), the general consistency of menus made programs
relatively easy to figure out.

I always wondered why MS Word had the Page Format under the File
command instead of under the Format command, but got used to it. Until
the ribbon, I typically used the Alt key plus keystrokes as I do in
LO. It just doesn't make sense to me to move from the keyboard to a
mouse whilst typing text. I've become accustomed to the ribbon (I
teach MS Word classes), and the Alt key plus keystrokes is still
there, but it seems much harder to use. However, I must have (in both
LO and MSO) my keyboard shortcuts and create keyboard shortcuts for
things I frequently use. The more I can keep my fingers over the
keyboard, the better.

Post by Virgil Arrington
More often-used commands could be attached to icons streamlining the
process.

Or to keyboard shortcuts.

Post by Virgil Arrington
But, the icon toolbars, while quick and easy, were never intended
to *replace* the menu structure, just supplement it.

I don't look at it that way. What I stress in all my classes is that
there are multiple ways to do things and none of them are more correct
than the others. I recommend users find a way with which they are most
comfortable and stick with it. I may think it a waste of time to move
my hand to the mouse, move it until my eye picks up the pointer on the
screen, move it to the bold format icon and click on it and then
return to the keyboard (and repeat to turn it bold formatting off),
but that doesn't make it more right. Just as different people have
different ways of learning, I think different people have different
degrees of comfort with the various ways to execute commands.

Post by Virgil Arrington
Toolbars are, by their
nature, very much subject to user preferences. When installing LO, I
immediately customize the toolbars to eliminate icons I never use.

I would encourage everyone to do this. Working with the default
arrangement rarely makes sense. It should be viewed as a starting
point.

--
T. R. Valentine
Your friends will argue with you. Your enemies don't care.
'When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food
and clothes.' -- Erasmus

[Urmas]

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon. I've not found *anyone* who actually
likes the ribbon. I agree with several of you who have observed that the
ribbon makes using styles much harder. And, since it's harder to use
styles, it only makes it that much harder for me to teach styles to my
students and effectively persuade them to use styles.

Actually, Ribbon is making using styles even better, as the Styles sidebar
does no longer conflict with document panes.

[Urmas]

Post by Urmas
no longer conflict with document panes.

I.e. split panes for a document window.

[Steve Edmonds]

Post by Virgil Arrington
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon. I've not found *anyone* who
actually likes the ribbon. I agree with several of you who have
observed that the ribbon makes using styles much harder. And, since
it's harder to use styles, it only makes it that much harder for me to
teach styles to my students and effectively persuade them to use styles.
It makes me wonder if MS did any type of focus group testing before
foisting it upon us. And, if they did do such testing, who did they
get in the focus groups?
Like many of you, I have used computers for many, many years. (I go
back to the PC-Write for DOS days), and I can honestly say that, over
the decades, I have found very few UI changes that have actually made
a difference in helping me be more productive.
I've been playing recently with WriteMonkey, a markdown text editor,
and I must confess, I like the UI with absolutely no toolbars or
ribbons; just keystroke combinations and some basic menus. Works for me.
Virgil

It's like the introduction of the mouse with the keyboard number pad.
Taking your hand off the mouse to enter numbers is a waste of time so
you have to learn to be left moused to keep productivity up.
Steve

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
To some extent, yes.  IF it does work better.  That is the crucial bit.  What other people are talking about is change that ends up breaking things without improving anything. 

The ancient phrase is "If it aint broke, don't fix it". 

There are plenty of innovations possible without rehashing stuff that does work.  Plenty of bugs and plenty of smoothing out to do too. 

We do have to experiment and play around with things because maybe it will lead to magically curing a ton of stuff unexpectedly but imo those should be choices that people can choose to indulge in rather than forcing people to use them just because the dev's manager prefers it that way.  Once enough people have played around and sufficient bugs have been fixed then it's time to make it the default choice but still why not give people the choice of revering to what they are most familiar with? 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 22:46
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO

      so agree  :-)
'change for the sake of change' is so inane.

how can you kids be all for 'if it works, don't fix it' and then
praise improvements?
shouldn't your motto be, "if it will work better, fix it"?
F.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Girvin R. Herr

Post by Girvin R. Herr
<snip>

I was talking to a professor a few days ago.  He does not like the newer
versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the interface and how
to do things". I made sure he know about LO.  He loved the multi language
part as well.
I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either.  Sure, the type of
interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not mean
you need to change it.  "Refreshing" or redesigning the interface, just
because you can, is not a reason to.  One of the good things about LO as it
went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the interface does not change, or has a
slow change so it does not "stand up and slap your face" with the changes.
  Once you learn "what is where" and how to do things, changing that will
cause problems.  Sure the interface could use some enhancements, like the
"persona" addition, but to keep our users happy, you must not make the
users relearn how to do things or where are the menu options are now
located.
  I have been using the OO/LO office suite since OO.o 1.x and now I am

using LO 3.6.6.  (I have not tried LO 4.0.x, since I am still waiting for
that less-buggy 4.1.5+ version to be released.)  However, I have found the
incremental changes to the user interface refreshing.  OO.o and now LO,
have made great improvements in this area with each release.  Nothing to
make me go back to school to get my degree on how to use it, but the
changes made the functions much easier to use and more intuitive.  To me,
that is a big plus.  I want to be productive, not have to re-learn user
interfaces with each new release.  Although I am a retired electronics
engineer, I am _not_ a techno-geek who has to have the latest and greatest
all the time.  You won't find me waiting for hours outside an Apple store
to buy the latest iPhone.  If it works, don't "fix" it is my motto.
Girvin Herr

--
Felmon Davis
Things past redress and now with me past care.
        -- William Shakespeare, "Richard II"
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Johnny Rosenberg]

I never tried Kingsoft Office myself, but I read a little about it
recently when I finally abandoned my old Nokia 3510 phone for an
Android phone. I found though, that Kingsoft Office doesn't support
ODF, and almost 100% of what I have is ODF so Kingsoft Office is
obviously not for me, and I never installed it.

I use Apache OpenOffice on my desktop (actually a laptop, but I use it
as a desktop) since I found LibreOffice way too buggy, but I installed
LibreOffice 4.0 for testing purposes. So far I didn't find something
for my spreadsheets for my phone. I know there are ODF viewers out
there, but I need to edit my files. So what I do right now, is that I
enter new stuff in a Google Docs spreadsheet, and when I come home, I
just copy and paste into the ”real” spreadsheet in Apache OpenOffice.
It works, but isn't very convenient…


Johnny Rosenberg

[Gordon Burgess-Parker]

Post by Kracked_P_P---webmaster
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
recommendations.

Kingsoft is well-known in Android circles as LO doesn't have an Andoid
option!
The company was formed in Hong Kong when Hong Kong was still British -
so it's not a "communist Chinese" company...

[anne-ology]

ah, yes, a good book ... a readable manual ... ... ...

I've tried at various times to read these supposed helpful manuals
only to discover more confusion ... it's like reading a foreign language
yet there's no dictionary to use for help;
and if they happen to have sketches ... well, these tend not to
correspond with the written document.

Automobiles, since becoming computerized, supposedly have these
helpful manuals - but reading them for something as simple as changing the
clock [an inane idea anyway] is next to impossible ... the trained
mechanics even have trouble with this one - it took 3 of them about 1/2
hour to finally figure out that one vehicle's settings were tied into the
radio dials but only if the engine was running and the gear was in park ;-)

"crazy is as crazy does"

Post by Girvin R. Herr
Ahh! The Gimp. Great program and I do have some use for it. However,
learning it has a _steep_ learning curve for me and, frankly, sitting at
the screen and reading the online manual is not what I would prefer using
my limited time for. There are several "learning" books out there, but
which one is the best one I need to learn The Gimp? That is my problem
with it. Once or twice I fiddled with it and got it to do somewhat what I
wanted, but it wasn't very intuitive and I feel it could do so much more
for me. If I could just get a good book on it and sit down and play with
it...
Girvin Herr

[Girvin R. Herr]

And I remember when car owner's manuals were 1/4" thick at the most, and
large (readable) print. My 2008 Toyota Prius owner's manual is 3/4"
thick, small print, and spattered with dire paragraphs about everything
causing injury or death! Made me want to turn in my license! It is not
a good read and, like your experience, information is not easy to find
in it. Oh, and the owner's maintenance manual is a separate manual -
equally obtuse and with more dire warnings. Usually, when I get a new
car, I go to the dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop
manual for correct maintenance and understanding of what is "under the
hood". When I did so for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended
not, saying the shop manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic
computer system ($$$$$) and by itself, is not very helpful. So, i saved
$100+ for the first time in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for
the first time in my decades of car-ownership, take it to the dealer for
maintenance.
Girvin Herr

Post by anne-ology
ah, yes, a good book ... a readable manual ... ... ...
I've tried at various times to read these supposed helpful
manuals only to discover more confusion ... it's like reading a
foreign language yet there's no dictionary to use for help;
and if they happen to have sketches ... well, these tend
not to correspond with the written document.
Automobiles, since becoming computerized, supposedly have these
helpful manuals - but reading them for something as simple as changing
the clock [an inane idea anyway] is next to impossible ... the trained
mechanics even have trouble with this one - it took 3 of them about
1/2 hour to finally figure out that one vehicle's settings were tied
into the radio dials but only if the engine was running and the gear
was in park ;-)
"crazy is as crazy does"
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Girvin R. Herr
Ahh! The Gimp. Great program and I do have some use for it.
However, learning it has a _steep_ learning curve for me and,
frankly, sitting at the screen and reading the online manual is
not what I would prefer using my limited time for. There are
several "learning" books out there, but which one is the best one
I need to learn The Gimp? That is my problem with it. Once or
twice I fiddled with it and got it to do somewhat what I wanted,
but it wasn't very intuitive and I feel it could do so much more
for me. If I could just get a good book on it and sit down and
play with it...
Girvin Herr

[les]

Post by Girvin R. Herr
And I remember when car owner's manuals were 1/4" thick at the most, and
large (readable) print. My 2008 Toyota Prius owner's manual is 3/4"
thick, small print, and spattered with dire paragraphs about everything
causing injury or death! Made me want to turn in my license! It is not
a good read and, like your experience, information is not easy to find
in it. Oh, and the owner's maintenance manual is a separate manual -
equally obtuse and with more dire warnings. Usually, when I get a new
car, I go to the dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop
manual for correct maintenance and understanding of what is "under the
hood". When I did so for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended
not, saying the shop manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic
computer system ($$$$$) and by itself, is not very helpful. So, i saved
$100+ for the first time in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for
the first time in my decades of car-ownership, take it to the dealer for
maintenance.
Girvin Herr

Also most mechanics are used to pure gasoline or diesel engines. I
think many of them inherently distrust the electronics, so it has been a
real uphill battle for them to port some of their existing knowledge to
these new systems. As to the computer system being the fault detector,
well, I guess that is kind of all of us Techies fault. Built in
diagnostics for complex systems is a lot of overhead, and of course the
reading of the actual data may or may not be helpful without a deep
understand of how all that information relates to the system operation.
The first answer is of course to have a computer crunch that
information, and with the early car computers, the crunching power is
not there. Today, I don't think that is true, but history holds us
prisoner sometimes.

The fundamental operation of a hybrid may be primarily electric, or
primarily gas. This view will determine a lot how the parts interrelate
and how the system overall operates.

Other decisions, such a regenerative braking, dynamic power allocation,
Battery leveling and other design choices will also affect the
interrelation of the controls. And then there is the aspect of multiple
computers. Some cars today have 7 computers that I know about. Which
ones do what, which sensors each reads and how they share and manipulate
information, if they do at all, also makes a huge difference in
diagnosis of any issue. Some of these issues will self resolve over
time as designers, engineers and mechanics gain familiarity with what
works and what doesn't. Over time the solutions will cycle from
complexity to simplicity while performance and efficiency will help form
the engineering boundaries and comfort, and customer perception will
help form the accessibility, reliability and aesthetic boundaries.

In short the rate of change is accelerating ;-) But where the **** is
my flying car???? I want one that shoots down drones and is stealthy
while offering me full internet access. 100mpg wouldn't hurt either.

Regards,
Les H

[Doug]

On 06/10/2013 02:14 PM, les wrote:

/snip/
I go to the dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop

Post by les

Post by Girvin R. Herr
manual for correct maintenance and understanding of what is "under the
hood". When I did so for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended
not, saying the shop manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic
computer system ($$$$$) and by itself, is not very helpful. So, i saved
$100+ for the first time in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for
the first time in my decades of car-ownership, take it to the dealer for
maintenance.
Girvin Herr

Also most mechanics are used to pure gasoline or diesel engines. I
think many of them inherently distrust the electronics, so it has been a
real uphill battle for them to port some of their existing knowledge to
these new systems.

/snip/

I don't know, but I would be willing to bet large sums that the manual
that goes with the computer diagnostics is far easier to read and
understand than anything written for diagnostics or setup of an
actual computer! (Still waiting for a networking treatise written in
humanly understood terms! Just for the home user, not for someone
setting up an IBM facility!)

--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
Has anyone read the Published Guides for LibreOffice?  or used them to look up the odd thing or few?  They are kinda ok aren't they? 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 20:21
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
/snip/
  I go to the dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop

Post by Girvin R. Herr
manual for correct maintenance and understanding of what is "under the
hood".  When I did so for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended
not, saying the shop manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic
computer system ($$$$$) and by itself, is not very helpful.  So, i saved
$100+ for the first time in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for
the first time in my decades of car-ownership, take it to the dealer for
maintenance.
Girvin Herr

Also most mechanics are used to pure gasoline or diesel engines.  I
think many of them inherently distrust the electronics, so it has been a
real uphill battle for them to port some of their existing knowledge to
these new systems.

/snip/
I don't know, but I would be willing to bet large sums that the manual
that goes with the computer diagnostics is far easier to read and
understand than anything written for diagnostics or setup of an
actual computer! (Still waiting for a networking treatise written in
humanly understood terms! Just for the home user, not for someone
setting up an IBM facility!)
--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Girvin R. Herr]

I have downloaded the 3.6 guides some time back and printed them out for
future reference. I occasionally refer to them when I need to find out
how to do something new or how something works. They are certainly
better than Help or scanning through online docs. The table of contents
and indexes are my friends. Yes, they are okay as far as they go.
Girvin Herr

Hi :)
Has anyone read the Published Guides for LibreOffice? or used them to look up the odd thing or few? They are kinda ok aren't they?
Regards from
Tom :)

________________________________
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 20:21
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
/snip/
I go to the dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop

Post by les

Post by Girvin R. Herr
manual for correct maintenance and understanding of what is "under the
hood". When I did so for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended
not, saying the shop manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic
computer system ($$$$$) and by itself, is not very helpful. So, i saved
$100+ for the first time in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for
the first time in my decades of car-ownership, take it to the dealer for
maintenance.
Girvin Herr

Also most mechanics are used to pure gasoline or diesel engines. I
think many of them inherently distrust the electronics, so it has been a
real uphill battle for them to port some of their existing knowledge to
these new systems.

/snip/
I don't know, but I would be willing to bet large sums that the manual
that goes with the computer diagnostics is far easier to read and
understand than anything written for diagnostics or setup of an
actual computer! (Still waiting for a networking treatise written in
humanly understood terms! Just for the home user, not for someone
setting up an IBM facility!)
--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
I even bought a couple from the Lulu bookstore.  Mostly it was to support TDF as a hefty chunk of the profit goes to the Docs Team (well, the fund is managed by "Friends of OpenDocument" on behalf of the docs team). 

I was quite chuffed with the glossy professional look.  Someone even 'accidentally' 'stole' one off me which shows that people are impressed by them and like the look!  Tbh i would probably have just given her a copy if she'd asked, just purely to get the book out there. 

I haven't actually read through it yet to see if it makes more sense than the average computer manuals so that was really what i was asking about.  Do they make sense?  It's good to hear the make more sense than other stuff to do with LibreOffice though. 
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 0:07
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
I have downloaded the 3.6 guides some time back and printed them out for
future reference.  I occasionally refer to them when I need to find out
how to do something new or how something works.  They are certainly
better than Help or scanning through online docs.  The table of contents
and indexes are my friends.  Yes, they are okay as far as they go.
Girvin Herr

Post by Tom Davies
Hi :)
Has anyone read the Published Guides for LibreOffice?  or used them to look up the odd thing or few?  They are kinda ok aren't they? 
Regards from
Tom :) 
 

________________________________
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 20:21
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
/snip/
  I go to the dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop
   

Post by Girvin R. Herr
manual for correct maintenance and understanding of what is "under the
hood".  When I did so for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended
not, saying the shop manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic
computer system ($$$$$) and by itself, is not very helpful.  So, i saved
$100+ for the first time in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for
the first time in my decades of car-ownership, take it to the dealer for
maintenance.
Girvin Herr
       

Also most mechanics are used to pure gasoline or diesel engines.  I
think many of them inherently distrust the electronics, so it has been a
real uphill battle for them to port some of their existing knowledge to
these new systems.
     

/snip/
I don't know, but I would be willing to bet large sums that the manual
that goes with the computer diagnostics is far easier to read and
understand than anything written for diagnostics or setup of an
actual computer! (Still waiting for a networking treatise written in
humanly understood terms! Just for the home user, not for someone
setting up an IBM facility!)
--doug
--
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley
--
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
   

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

[anne-ology]

Ah, yes - back before computerization, there were many teens
[males usually]
who would purchase an old roadster to fix up then proudly
drive it 'round town.
They may be the ones who now are driving these oldies in the antique
car shows ;-)



On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Girvin R. Herr
<***@sbcglobal.net>wrote:

And I remember when car owner's manuals were 1/4" thick at the most, and

large (readable) print. My 2008 Toyota Prius owner's manual is 3/4" thick,
small print, and spattered with dire paragraphs about everything causing
injury or death! Made me want to turn in my license! It is not a good
read and, like your experience, information is not easy to find in it. Oh,
and the owner's maintenance manual is a separate manual - equally obtuse
and with more dire warnings. Usually, when I get a new car, I go to the
dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop manual for correct
maintenance and understanding of what is "under the hood". When I did so
for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended not, saying the shop
manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic computer system ($$$$$)
and by itself, is not very helpful. So, i saved $100+ for the first time
in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for the first time in my decades
of car-ownership, take it to the dealer for maintenance.
Girvin Herr

Post by anne-ology
ah, yes, a good book ... a readable manual ... ... ...
I've tried at various times to read these supposed helpful manuals
only to discover more confusion ... it's like reading a foreign language
yet there's no dictionary to use for help;
and if they happen to have sketches ... well, these tend not
to correspond with the written document.
Automobiles, since becoming computerized, supposedly have these
helpful manuals - but reading them for something as simple as changing the
clock [an inane idea anyway] is next to impossible ... the trained
mechanics even have trouble with this one - it took 3 of them about 1/2
hour to finally figure out that one vehicle's settings were tied into the
radio dials but only if the engine was running and the gear was in park ;-)
"crazy is as crazy does"
Ahh! The Gimp. Great program and I do have some use for it.
However, learning it has a _steep_ learning curve for me and,
frankly, sitting at the screen and reading the online manual is
not what I would prefer using my limited time for. There are
several "learning" books out there, but which one is the best one
I need to learn The Gimp? That is my problem with it. Once or
twice I fiddled with it and got it to do somewhat what I wanted,
but it wasn't very intuitive and I feel it could do so much more
for me. If I could just get a good book on it and sit down and
play with it...
Girvin Herr

[anne-ology]

I've tried a couple of times - whenever I've wanted to figure out
what add-on was included vs. what wasn't ...
it was like reading in circles ... such 'n such is for such 'n
such but not needed if ... ... ...



On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Tom Davies <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Hi :)

Has anyone read the Published Guides for LibreOffice? or used them to
look up the odd thing or few? They are kinda ok aren't they?
Regards from
Tom :)

Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 20:21
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO

alternative is not LO

/snip/
I go to the dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop

Post by les

Post by Girvin R. Herr
manual for correct maintenance and understanding of what is "under the
hood". When I did so for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended
not, saying the shop manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic
computer system ($$$$$) and by itself, is not very helpful. So, i

saved

Post by les

Post by Girvin R. Herr
$100+ for the first time in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for
the first time in my decades of car-ownership, take it to the dealer

for

Post by les

Post by Girvin R. Herr
maintenance.
Girvin Herr

Also most mechanics are used to pure gasoline or diesel engines. I
think many of them inherently distrust the electronics, so it has been a
real uphill battle for them to port some of their existing knowledge to
these new systems.

/snip/
I don't know, but I would be willing to bet large sums that the manual
that goes with the computer diagnostics is far easier to read and
understand than anything written for diagnostics or setup of an
actual computer! (Still waiting for a networking treatise written in
humanly understood terms! Just for the home user, not for someone
setting up an IBM facility!)
--doug

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
Ahh, i didn't think they mentioned specific Extensions and their usage.  I htought they only covered the core functionality. 
Thanks Anne!
Regards from
Tom :) 

________________________________
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 23:55
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
      I've tried a couple of times - whenever I've wanted to figure out
what add-on was included vs. what wasn't ...
          it was like reading in circles ... such 'n such is for such 'n
such but not needed if ... ... ...
Hi :)

Post by Tom Davies
Has anyone read the Published Guides for LibreOffice?  or used them to
look up the odd thing or few?  They are kinda ok aren't they?
Regards from
Tom :)

Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 20:21
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO

alternative is not LO

/snip/
  I go to the dealer's parts counter and order the factory shop

Post by Girvin R. Herr
manual for correct maintenance and understanding of what is "under the
hood".  When I did so for the Prius, the parts counter guy recommended
not, saying the shop manual is intricately tied to the shop diagnostic
computer system ($$$$$) and by itself, is not very helpful.  So, i

saved

Post by Girvin R. Herr
$100+ for the first time in my shadetree-mechanic career and, also for
the first time in my decades of car-ownership, take it to the dealer

for

Post by Girvin R. Herr
maintenance.
Girvin Herr

Also most mechanics are used to pure gasoline or diesel engines.  I
think many of them inherently distrust the electronics, so it has been a
real uphill battle for them to port some of their existing knowledge to
these new systems.

/snip/
I don't know, but I would be willing to bet large sums that the manual
that goes with the computer diagnostics is far easier to read and
understand than anything written for diagnostics or setup of an
actual computer! (Still waiting for a networking treatise written in
humanly understood terms! Just for the home user, not for someone
setting up an IBM facility!)
--doug

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

[anne-ology]

Ah, well, that explains why the manual(s) make no sense ;-)



On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Tom Davies <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Hi :)

Ahh, i didn't think they mentioned specific Extensions and their usage. I
thought they only covered the core functionality.
Thanks Anne!
Regards from
Tom :)
------------------------------
*Sent:* Monday, 10 June 2013, 23:55
*Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO
I've tried a couple of times - whenever I've wanted to figure out
what add-on was included vs. what wasn't ...
it was like reading in circles ... such 'n such is for such 'n
such but not needed if ... ... ...
Hi :)

Has anyone read the Published Guides for LibreOffice? or used them to
look up the odd thing or few? They are kinda ok aren't they?
Regards from
Tom :)