From <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/work-life/5-stand-out-libreoffice-features-that-make-it-my-go-to-office-suite/>:

Customizable GUI:

For example, when writing a novel, I want the sidebar always
readily available because I need quick access to formatting
options. If I'm working on a more traditional document, I might go
with the tabbed UI. For spreadsheets, I want the simplest UI that
I can use, such as the contextual single UI.

LibreOffice makes this possible, with the ability to switch
between a standard toolbar, tabbed, single toolbar, sidebar,
tabbed compact, groupedbar compact, and contextual single. You can
even make changes to different tools, which allows you to have one
UI for Writer, one for Calc, and one for Presents.

Customizable styles:

What I like about this feature is that it allows me to get very
granular with the styles, even to the point where I can define
what style comes next, how drop caps are handled, transparency,
borders, indents & spacing, text flow, font, position, highlights,
much more.

No AI:

(what more needs to be said?)

Microsoft Office compatibility:

For a while, I was writing everything in Google Docs; that is,
until one of my editors complained of incompatibility issues (even
when exporting to the .docx format with Docs). Once I switched
from Google Docs to LibreOffice (for my fiction writing), those
issues all went away.

Document export:

LibreOffice document export allows you to export your Writer
documents to XHTML, PDF, EPUB, MediaWiki, Writer Indexing Export
XML, JPEG, Writer Layout XML, PNG, and WEBP. You can also save as
ODF, ODF Template, Flat XML, Unified Office Format, Word 2010-365,
Word 2007, Word 2007 Template, Word 2003 XML, Rich Text, Word
97-2003, and other types. If there's a format you need, more than
likely LibreOffice can export it.

...

I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.

Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
compatibility with Microsoft Office ...

Le 2024-10-15 à 20 h 44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
> From <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/work-life/5-stand-out-libreoffice-features-that-make-it-my-go-to-office-suite/>:
>
> Customizable GUI:
>
> For example, when writing a novel, I want the sidebar always
> readily available because I need quick access to formatting
> options. If I'm working on a more traditional document, I might go
> with the tabbed UI. For spreadsheets, I want the simplest UI that
> I can use, such as the contextual single UI.
>
> LibreOffice makes this possible, with the ability to switch
> between a standard toolbar, tabbed, single toolbar, sidebar,
> tabbed compact, groupedbar compact, and contextual single. You can
> even make changes to different tools, which allows you to have one
> UI for Writer, one for Calc, and one for Presents.
>
> Customizable styles:
>
> What I like about this feature is that it allows me to get very
> granular with the styles, even to the point where I can define
> what style comes next, how drop caps are handled, transparency,
> borders, indents & spacing, text flow, font, position, highlights,
> much more.
>
> No AI:
>
> (what more needs to be said?)
>
> Microsoft Office compatibility:
>
> For a while, I was writing everything in Google Docs; that is,
> until one of my editors complained of incompatibility issues (even
> when exporting to the .docx format with Docs). Once I switched
> from Google Docs to LibreOffice (for my fiction writing), those
> issues all went away.
>
> Document export:
>
> LibreOffice document export allows you to export your Writer
> documents to XHTML, PDF, EPUB, MediaWiki, Writer Indexing Export
> XML, JPEG, Writer Layout XML, PNG, and WEBP. You can also save as
> ODF, ODF Template, Flat XML, Unified Office Format, Word 2010-365,
> Word 2007, Word 2007 Template, Word 2003 XML, Rich Text, Word
> 97-2003, and other types. If there's a format you need, more than
> likely LibreOffice can export it.
>
> ...
>
> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>
> Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
> compatibility with Microsoft Office ...

I have a license to Microsoft Office, but I'll use LibreOffice simply
because it doesn't push a closed standard on me. I have never believed
in proprietary formats.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>
>Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
>compatibility with Microsoft Office ...

Yes ... :)

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-10-16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> From <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/work-life/5-stand-out-libreoffice-features-that-make-it-my-go-to-office-suite/>:
>
> Customizable GUI:
>
> For example, when writing a novel, I want the sidebar always
> readily available because I need quick access to formatting
> options. If I'm working on a more traditional document, I might go
> with the tabbed UI. For spreadsheets, I want the simplest UI that
> I can use, such as the contextual single UI.
>
> LibreOffice makes this possible, with the ability to switch
> between a standard toolbar, tabbed, single toolbar, sidebar,
> tabbed compact, groupedbar compact, and contextual single. You can
> even make changes to different tools, which allows you to have one
> UI for Writer, one for Calc, and one for Presents.
>
> Customizable styles:
>
> What I like about this feature is that it allows me to get very
> granular with the styles, even to the point where I can define
> what style comes next, how drop caps are handled, transparency,
> borders, indents & spacing, text flow, font, position, highlights,
> much more.
>
> No AI:
>
> (what more needs to be said?)
>
> Microsoft Office compatibility:
>
> For a while, I was writing everything in Google Docs; that is,
> until one of my editors complained of incompatibility issues (even
> when exporting to the .docx format with Docs). Once I switched
> from Google Docs to LibreOffice (for my fiction writing), those
> issues all went away.
>
> Document export:
>
> LibreOffice document export allows you to export your Writer
> documents to XHTML, PDF, EPUB, MediaWiki, Writer Indexing Export
> XML, JPEG, Writer Layout XML, PNG, and WEBP. You can also save as
> ODF, ODF Template, Flat XML, Unified Office Format, Word 2010-365,
> Word 2007, Word 2007 Template, Word 2003 XML, Rich Text, Word
> 97-2003, and other types. If there's a format you need, more than
> likely LibreOffice can export it.
>
> ...
>
> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>
> Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
> compatibility with Microsoft Office ...

All very good reasons to use LibreOffice. I've actually started using it in
preference to TextMaker lately. A couple nights ago I turned a free
Microsoft formatted book into an ePub for my eReader. Between LibreOffice
and Calibre they did a very nice job.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-10-15 à 20 h 44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
>> From <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/work-life/5-stand-out-libreoffice-features-that-make-it-my-go-to-office-suite/>:
>>
>> Customizable GUI:
>>
>> For example, when writing a novel, I want the sidebar always
>> readily available because I need quick access to formatting
>> options. If I'm working on a more traditional document, I might go
>> with the tabbed UI. For spreadsheets, I want the simplest UI that
>> I can use, such as the contextual single UI.
>>
>> LibreOffice makes this possible, with the ability to switch
>> between a standard toolbar, tabbed, single toolbar, sidebar,
>> tabbed compact, groupedbar compact, and contextual single. You can
>> even make changes to different tools, which allows you to have one
>> UI for Writer, one for Calc, and one for Presents.
>>
>> Customizable styles:
>>
>> What I like about this feature is that it allows me to get very
>> granular with the styles, even to the point where I can define
>> what style comes next, how drop caps are handled, transparency,
>> borders, indents & spacing, text flow, font, position, highlights,
>> much more.
>>
>> No AI:
>>
>> (what more needs to be said?)
>>
>> Microsoft Office compatibility:
>>
>> For a while, I was writing everything in Google Docs; that is,
>> until one of my editors complained of incompatibility issues (even
>> when exporting to the .docx format with Docs). Once I switched
>> from Google Docs to LibreOffice (for my fiction writing), those
>> issues all went away.
>>
>> Document export:
>>
>> LibreOffice document export allows you to export your Writer
>> documents to XHTML, PDF, EPUB, MediaWiki, Writer Indexing Export
>> XML, JPEG, Writer Layout XML, PNG, and WEBP. You can also save as
>> ODF, ODF Template, Flat XML, Unified Office Format, Word 2010-365,
>> Word 2007, Word 2007 Template, Word 2003 XML, Rich Text, Word
>> 97-2003, and other types. If there's a format you need, more than
>> likely LibreOffice can export it.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
>> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>>
>> Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
>> compatibility with Microsoft Office ...
>
> I have a license to Microsoft Office, but I'll use LibreOffice simply
> because it doesn't push a closed standard on me. I have never believed
> in proprietary formats.

LibreOffice is getting continually better. At least that's my opinion. I
don't have a clue about M$ Office. I haven't used it in years. (Don't have
to, now that I'm retired.)

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

Le 2024-10-16 à 07 h 32, RonB a écrit :
> On 2024-10-16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> From <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/work-life/5-stand-out-libreoffice-features-that-make-it-my-go-to-office-suite/>:
>>
>> Customizable GUI:
>>
>> For example, when writing a novel, I want the sidebar always
>> readily available because I need quick access to formatting
>> options. If I'm working on a more traditional document, I might go
>> with the tabbed UI. For spreadsheets, I want the simplest UI that
>> I can use, such as the contextual single UI.
>>
>> LibreOffice makes this possible, with the ability to switch
>> between a standard toolbar, tabbed, single toolbar, sidebar,
>> tabbed compact, groupedbar compact, and contextual single. You can
>> even make changes to different tools, which allows you to have one
>> UI for Writer, one for Calc, and one for Presents.
>>
>> Customizable styles:
>>
>> What I like about this feature is that it allows me to get very
>> granular with the styles, even to the point where I can define
>> what style comes next, how drop caps are handled, transparency,
>> borders, indents & spacing, text flow, font, position, highlights,
>> much more.
>>
>> No AI:
>>
>> (what more needs to be said?)
>>
>> Microsoft Office compatibility:
>>
>> For a while, I was writing everything in Google Docs; that is,
>> until one of my editors complained of incompatibility issues (even
>> when exporting to the .docx format with Docs). Once I switched
>> from Google Docs to LibreOffice (for my fiction writing), those
>> issues all went away.
>>
>> Document export:
>>
>> LibreOffice document export allows you to export your Writer
>> documents to XHTML, PDF, EPUB, MediaWiki, Writer Indexing Export
>> XML, JPEG, Writer Layout XML, PNG, and WEBP. You can also save as
>> ODF, ODF Template, Flat XML, Unified Office Format, Word 2010-365,
>> Word 2007, Word 2007 Template, Word 2003 XML, Rich Text, Word
>> 97-2003, and other types. If there's a format you need, more than
>> likely LibreOffice can export it.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
>> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>>
>> Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
>> compatibility with Microsoft Office ...
>
> All very good reasons to use LibreOffice. I've actually started using it in
> preference to TextMaker lately. A couple nights ago I turned a free
> Microsoft formatted book into an ePub for my eReader. Between LibreOffice
> and Calibre they did a very nice job.

Funny enough, that last comment of his is probably the best reason to
use LibreOffice. I have no doubt that the latest version of LibreOffice
will be able to read and edit a document produced by even the earliest
version of OpenOffice. However, I can't be sure that the latest
Microsoft Office will be able to handle a DOC from 1995. That's one of
the many advantages of open formats for me.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

Le 2024-10-16 à 07 h 33, RonB a écrit :
> On 2024-10-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> Le 2024-10-15 à 20 h 44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
>>> From <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/work-life/5-stand-out-libreoffice-features-that-make-it-my-go-to-office-suite/>:
>>>
>>> Customizable GUI:
>>>
>>> For example, when writing a novel, I want the sidebar always
>>> readily available because I need quick access to formatting
>>> options. If I'm working on a more traditional document, I might go
>>> with the tabbed UI. For spreadsheets, I want the simplest UI that
>>> I can use, such as the contextual single UI.
>>>
>>> LibreOffice makes this possible, with the ability to switch
>>> between a standard toolbar, tabbed, single toolbar, sidebar,
>>> tabbed compact, groupedbar compact, and contextual single. You can
>>> even make changes to different tools, which allows you to have one
>>> UI for Writer, one for Calc, and one for Presents.
>>>
>>> Customizable styles:
>>>
>>> What I like about this feature is that it allows me to get very
>>> granular with the styles, even to the point where I can define
>>> what style comes next, how drop caps are handled, transparency,
>>> borders, indents & spacing, text flow, font, position, highlights,
>>> much more.
>>>
>>> No AI:
>>>
>>> (what more needs to be said?)
>>>
>>> Microsoft Office compatibility:
>>>
>>> For a while, I was writing everything in Google Docs; that is,
>>> until one of my editors complained of incompatibility issues (even
>>> when exporting to the .docx format with Docs). Once I switched
>>> from Google Docs to LibreOffice (for my fiction writing), those
>>> issues all went away.
>>>
>>> Document export:
>>>
>>> LibreOffice document export allows you to export your Writer
>>> documents to XHTML, PDF, EPUB, MediaWiki, Writer Indexing Export
>>> XML, JPEG, Writer Layout XML, PNG, and WEBP. You can also save as
>>> ODF, ODF Template, Flat XML, Unified Office Format, Word 2010-365,
>>> Word 2007, Word 2007 Template, Word 2003 XML, Rich Text, Word
>>> 97-2003, and other types. If there's a format you need, more than
>>> likely LibreOffice can export it.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
>>> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>>>
>>> Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
>>> compatibility with Microsoft Office ...
>>
>> I have a license to Microsoft Office, but I'll use LibreOffice simply
>> because it doesn't push a closed standard on me. I have never believed
>> in proprietary formats.
>
> LibreOffice is getting continually better. At least that's my opinion. I
> don't have a clue about M$ Office. I haven't used it in years. (Don't have
> to, now that I'm retired.)

I've said it before, but I just prefer the LibreOffice interface. It
might be old, but things are exactly where you expect them to be unlike
Microsoft Office. I've been in a situation where I had to change the
formatting of a document while in class to make it more readable for the
kids. With LibreOffice, I can easily find the feature I'm looking for
and change it for them within a second, but with Microsoft Office I'm
usually left navigating for a minute. Of course, I'm not an expert with
either suite, so that has to be factored in, but Libre seems more
intuitive to me.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 01:29 this Wednesday (GMT):
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
>> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>>
>>Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
>>compatibility with Microsoft Office ...
>
>
> Yes ... :)

Also, .docx and similar "compatibility" file formats.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:10:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Also, .docx and similar "compatibility" file formats.

ISO 29500 (OOXML) is an absolute shambles of a “standard”, full of gaps
and contradictions. It supposedly defines a “transitional” mode and a
“strict” compliance mode, but even now, 20 years after the spec was
supposedly “standardized”, everybody is still afraid to use “strict” mode
because it might break too many things.

If you want a standard document format, stick to ISO 26300 (ODF). It’s a
much smaller and simpler spec -- easier to understand, and easier to
verify that you are compliant with it.

On 2024-10-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-10-16 à 07 h 33, RonB a écrit :
>> On 2024-10-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> Le 2024-10-15 à 20 h 44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
>>>> From <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/work-life/5-stand-out-libreoffice-features-that-make-it-my-go-to-office-suite/>:
>>>>
>>>> Customizable GUI:
>>>>
>>>> For example, when writing a novel, I want the sidebar always
>>>> readily available because I need quick access to formatting
>>>> options. If I'm working on a more traditional document, I might go
>>>> with the tabbed UI. For spreadsheets, I want the simplest UI that
>>>> I can use, such as the contextual single UI.
>>>>
>>>> LibreOffice makes this possible, with the ability to switch
>>>> between a standard toolbar, tabbed, single toolbar, sidebar,
>>>> tabbed compact, groupedbar compact, and contextual single. You can
>>>> even make changes to different tools, which allows you to have one
>>>> UI for Writer, one for Calc, and one for Presents.
>>>>
>>>> Customizable styles:
>>>>
>>>> What I like about this feature is that it allows me to get very
>>>> granular with the styles, even to the point where I can define
>>>> what style comes next, how drop caps are handled, transparency,
>>>> borders, indents & spacing, text flow, font, position, highlights,
>>>> much more.
>>>>
>>>> No AI:
>>>>
>>>> (what more needs to be said?)
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft Office compatibility:
>>>>
>>>> For a while, I was writing everything in Google Docs; that is,
>>>> until one of my editors complained of incompatibility issues (even
>>>> when exporting to the .docx format with Docs). Once I switched
>>>> from Google Docs to LibreOffice (for my fiction writing), those
>>>> issues all went away.
>>>>
>>>> Document export:
>>>>
>>>> LibreOffice document export allows you to export your Writer
>>>> documents to XHTML, PDF, EPUB, MediaWiki, Writer Indexing Export
>>>> XML, JPEG, Writer Layout XML, PNG, and WEBP. You can also save as
>>>> ODF, ODF Template, Flat XML, Unified Office Format, Word 2010-365,
>>>> Word 2007, Word 2007 Template, Word 2003 XML, Rich Text, Word
>>>> 97-2003, and other types. If there's a format you need, more than
>>>> likely LibreOffice can export it.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
>>>> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>>>>
>>>> Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
>>>> compatibility with Microsoft Office ...
>>>
>>> I have a license to Microsoft Office, but I'll use LibreOffice simply
>>> because it doesn't push a closed standard on me. I have never believed
>>> in proprietary formats.
>>
>> LibreOffice is getting continually better. At least that's my opinion. I
>> don't have a clue about M$ Office. I haven't used it in years. (Don't have
>> to, now that I'm retired.)
>
> I've said it before, but I just prefer the LibreOffice interface. It
> might be old, but things are exactly where you expect them to be unlike
> Microsoft Office. I've been in a situation where I had to change the
> formatting of a document while in class to make it more readable for the
> kids. With LibreOffice, I can easily find the feature I'm looking for
> and change it for them within a second, but with Microsoft Office I'm
> usually left navigating for a minute. Of course, I'm not an expert with
> either suite, so that has to be factored in, but Libre seems more
> intuitive to me.

I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing it
as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has to be
different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The interface
should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing the software
and only add features people really want. That's the way to NOT get
bloatware.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:24:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing
> it as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has
> to be different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The
> interface should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing
> the software and only add features people really want. That's the way to
> NOT get bloatware.

FOSS isn't immune to the 'we've got to change something' trap. Unity comes
to mind.

Le 2024-10-17 à 02 h 24, RonB a écrit :
> On 2024-10-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> Le 2024-10-16 à 07 h 33, RonB a écrit :
>>> On 2024-10-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> Le 2024-10-15 à 20 h 44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
>>>>> From <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/work-life/5-stand-out-libreoffice-features-that-make-it-my-go-to-office-suite/>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Customizable GUI:
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, when writing a novel, I want the sidebar always
>>>>> readily available because I need quick access to formatting
>>>>> options. If I'm working on a more traditional document, I might go
>>>>> with the tabbed UI. For spreadsheets, I want the simplest UI that
>>>>> I can use, such as the contextual single UI.
>>>>>
>>>>> LibreOffice makes this possible, with the ability to switch
>>>>> between a standard toolbar, tabbed, single toolbar, sidebar,
>>>>> tabbed compact, groupedbar compact, and contextual single. You can
>>>>> even make changes to different tools, which allows you to have one
>>>>> UI for Writer, one for Calc, and one for Presents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Customizable styles:
>>>>>
>>>>> What I like about this feature is that it allows me to get very
>>>>> granular with the styles, even to the point where I can define
>>>>> what style comes next, how drop caps are handled, transparency,
>>>>> borders, indents & spacing, text flow, font, position, highlights,
>>>>> much more.
>>>>>
>>>>> No AI:
>>>>>
>>>>> (what more needs to be said?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft Office compatibility:
>>>>>
>>>>> For a while, I was writing everything in Google Docs; that is,
>>>>> until one of my editors complained of incompatibility issues (even
>>>>> when exporting to the .docx format with Docs). Once I switched
>>>>> from Google Docs to LibreOffice (for my fiction writing), those
>>>>> issues all went away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Document export:
>>>>>
>>>>> LibreOffice document export allows you to export your Writer
>>>>> documents to XHTML, PDF, EPUB, MediaWiki, Writer Indexing Export
>>>>> XML, JPEG, Writer Layout XML, PNG, and WEBP. You can also save as
>>>>> ODF, ODF Template, Flat XML, Unified Office Format, Word 2010-365,
>>>>> Word 2007, Word 2007 Template, Word 2003 XML, Rich Text, Word
>>>>> 97-2003, and other types. If there's a format you need, more than
>>>>> likely LibreOffice can export it.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I can also ask what version of MS Office a collaborator is using
>>>>> and make sure to export it to the most compatible version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because, you know, even Microsoft Office cannot manage 100%
>>>>> compatibility with Microsoft Office ...
>>>>
>>>> I have a license to Microsoft Office, but I'll use LibreOffice simply
>>>> because it doesn't push a closed standard on me. I have never believed
>>>> in proprietary formats.
>>>
>>> LibreOffice is getting continually better. At least that's my opinion. I
>>> don't have a clue about M$ Office. I haven't used it in years. (Don't have
>>> to, now that I'm retired.)
>>
>> I've said it before, but I just prefer the LibreOffice interface. It
>> might be old, but things are exactly where you expect them to be unlike
>> Microsoft Office. I've been in a situation where I had to change the
>> formatting of a document while in class to make it more readable for the
>> kids. With LibreOffice, I can easily find the feature I'm looking for
>> and change it for them within a second, but with Microsoft Office I'm
>> usually left navigating for a minute. Of course, I'm not an expert with
>> either suite, so that has to be factored in, but Libre seems more
>> intuitive to me.
>
> I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing it
> as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has to be
> different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The interface
> should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing the software
> and only add features people really want. That's the way to NOT get
> bloatware.

I know that when I joined the Free Software Foundation a few years ago,
one of the things it offered me with the membership was LibreOffice
certification. Usually, these certifications are meaningless and you
need to renew them every year or so, but theirs is actually quite useful
considering how little the software has changed over the years. It's
more robust and a few new features have been added, but that
certification, had I chosen to get it, would still be as useful today as
it was then unlike a Microsoft Office certification. Unfortunately
though, the software isn't so widespread that I could get compensated
for any advanced knowledge of the suite.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

Le 2024-10-17 à 03 h 16, rbowman a écrit :
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:24:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing
>> it as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has
>> to be different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The
>> interface should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing
>> the software and only add features people really want. That's the way to
>> NOT get bloatware.
>
> FOSS isn't immune to the 'we've got to change something' trap. Unity comes
> to mind.

I never thought that Unity was all that bad. If anything, its mere
existence forced the developers of other desktop environments to improve
their work, at least as far as aesthetics are concerned. I believe that
the more competition there is, the better each product becomes.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 08:53:19 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Unfortunately though, the software isn't so widespread that I could get
> compensated for any advanced knowledge of the suite.

The nice thing about ODF is, it’s such a straightforward and well-
understood format, there is this ecosystem of useful addon tools for
dealing with it.

For example, I use odfpy to automatically generate invoices to customers
from my time and billing database in .odt format. I could produce PDF
files directly, but I still like to give the info a once-over in
LibreOffice Writer before using its export-to-PDF function -- just in case
I need to do any manual edits.

On 2024-10-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:24:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing
>> it as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has
>> to be different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The
>> interface should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing
>> the software and only add features people really want. That's the way to
>> NOT get bloatware.
>
> FOSS isn't immune to the 'we've got to change something' trap. Unity comes
> to mind.

Gnome, in general, has suffered from the "change for change sake" issue. But
they're the exception, not the rule.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-10-17 à 03 h 16, rbowman a écrit :
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:24:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing
>>> it as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has
>>> to be different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The
>>> interface should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing
>>> the software and only add features people really want. That's the way to
>>> NOT get bloatware.
>>
>> FOSS isn't immune to the 'we've got to change something' trap. Unity comes
>> to mind.
>
> I never thought that Unity was all that bad. If anything, its mere
> existence forced the developers of other desktop environments to improve
> their work, at least as far as aesthetics are concerned. I believe that
> the more competition there is, the better each product becomes.

The whole concept of Unity was to be a "one size fits all" solution for
desktops/laptops, tablets and smartphones. I never bought into that as you
use these platforms differently. Microsoft tried the same thing with Windows
8, and it was also a failure.

I went away from Gnome when Gnome 3 came out. I think that's when Linux Mint
really started to climb in popularity. Mate was a reaction to Gnome 3, and
Mint's own Cinnamon came along a bit later. Both are related to Gnome, but
radically different and much more "traditional."

But choice is good. A lot of people like Gnome and that's fine. Just not
something I like at all.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

Le 2024-10-18 à 03 h 13, RonB a écrit :
> On 2024-10-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> Le 2024-10-17 à 03 h 16, rbowman a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:24:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing
>>>> it as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has
>>>> to be different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The
>>>> interface should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing
>>>> the software and only add features people really want. That's the way to
>>>> NOT get bloatware.
>>>
>>> FOSS isn't immune to the 'we've got to change something' trap. Unity comes
>>> to mind.
>>
>> I never thought that Unity was all that bad. If anything, its mere
>> existence forced the developers of other desktop environments to improve
>> their work, at least as far as aesthetics are concerned. I believe that
>> the more competition there is, the better each product becomes.
>
> The whole concept of Unity was to be a "one size fits all" solution for
> desktops/laptops, tablets and smartphones. I never bought into that as you
> use these platforms differently. Microsoft tried the same thing with Windows
> 8, and it was also a failure.
>
> I went away from Gnome when Gnome 3 came out. I think that's when Linux Mint
> really started to climb in popularity. Mate was a reaction to Gnome 3, and
> Mint's own Cinnamon came along a bit later. Both are related to Gnome, but
> radically different and much more "traditional."
>
> But choice is good. A lot of people like Gnome and that's fine. Just not
> something I like at all.

The absolute disgust with Gnome 3 was what drove me to drive it out. I
had to see if it was as bad as people claimed that it was. Honestly, in
its initial state, you could tell that they had some clever ideas but
that they hadn't all been properly implemented yet. However, by the time
Gnome 3.28 (I believe) came out, things were pretty good. I wouldn't use
it myself today, but it's only because they have subscribed to Marxism
and seem intent on destroying themselves.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 22:29 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:10:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Also, .docx and similar "compatibility" file formats.
>
> ISO 29500 (OOXML) is an absolute shambles of a “standard”, full of gaps
> and contradictions. It supposedly defines a “transitional” mode and a
> “strict” compliance mode, but even now, 20 years after the spec was
> supposedly “standardized”, everybody is still afraid to use “strict” mode
> because it might break too many things.
>
> If you want a standard document format, stick to ISO 26300 (ODF). It’s a
> much smaller and simpler spec -- easier to understand, and easier to
> verify that you are compliant with it.

Is ODT good too?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:04:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> Gnome, in general, has suffered from the "change for change sake" issue.
> But they're the exception, not the rule.

I use it but my preference is KDE. Even with going to Wayland it hasn't
taken too many weird detours.

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gnome, in general, has suffered from the "change for change sake" issue. But
>they're the exception, not the rule.

I agree, they made it too awkward, I can use it, but Cinnamon is much
smoother of a ride.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-10-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-10-18 à 03 h 13, RonB a écrit :
>> On 2024-10-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> Le 2024-10-17 à 03 h 16, rbowman a écrit :
>>>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:24:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing
>>>>> it as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has
>>>>> to be different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The
>>>>> interface should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing
>>>>> the software and only add features people really want. That's the way to
>>>>> NOT get bloatware.
>>>>
>>>> FOSS isn't immune to the 'we've got to change something' trap. Unity comes
>>>> to mind.
>>>
>>> I never thought that Unity was all that bad. If anything, its mere
>>> existence forced the developers of other desktop environments to improve
>>> their work, at least as far as aesthetics are concerned. I believe that
>>> the more competition there is, the better each product becomes.
>>
>> The whole concept of Unity was to be a "one size fits all" solution for
>> desktops/laptops, tablets and smartphones. I never bought into that as you
>> use these platforms differently. Microsoft tried the same thing with Windows
>> 8, and it was also a failure.
>>
>> I went away from Gnome when Gnome 3 came out. I think that's when Linux Mint
>> really started to climb in popularity. Mate was a reaction to Gnome 3, and
>> Mint's own Cinnamon came along a bit later. Both are related to Gnome, but
>> radically different and much more "traditional."
>>
>> But choice is good. A lot of people like Gnome and that's fine. Just not
>> something I like at all.
>
> The absolute disgust with Gnome 3 was what drove me to drive it out. I
> had to see if it was as bad as people claimed that it was. Honestly, in
> its initial state, you could tell that they had some clever ideas but
> that they hadn't all been properly implemented yet. However, by the time
> Gnome 3.28 (I believe) came out, things were pretty good. I wouldn't use
> it myself today, but it's only because they have subscribed to Marxism
> and seem intent on destroying themselves.

I don't like the fact that, by default, there's no panel or minimize button
— and I hate tiling or snapping windows. I guess I'm set in my ways, but I'm
used to a familiar desktop UI and I don't want something foreign to it for
the sake of using something different.

I realize other people like Gnome and that's what's good about Linux. Lots of
choices for different tastes. Fortunately I don't have to use Gnome to use
Linux.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-18, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:04:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> Gnome, in general, has suffered from the "change for change sake" issue.
>> But they're the exception, not the rule.
>
> I use it but my preference is KDE. Even with going to Wayland it hasn't
> taken too many weird detours.

Even on Fedora I use Cinnamon. On the HP, which is running KDE Neon, I can
try out KDE. I could probably get used to it, but I don't see any advantage
over Cinnamon. Again, Mate and Cinnamon are all I've been using (regularly)
for about 16 years now, so I know them pretty well.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

Le 2024-10-19 à 02 h 17, RonB a écrit :
> On 2024-10-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> Le 2024-10-18 à 03 h 13, RonB a écrit :
>>> On 2024-10-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> Le 2024-10-17 à 03 h 16, rbowman a écrit :
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:24:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think, sometimes, when you're selling a product (rather than releasing
>>>>>> it as open source) there's pressure to change SOMETHING because it has
>>>>>> to be different in order to separate it from the earlier version. The
>>>>>> interface should stay the same — what they should do is just keep fixing
>>>>>> the software and only add features people really want. That's the way to
>>>>>> NOT get bloatware.
>>>>>
>>>>> FOSS isn't immune to the 'we've got to change something' trap. Unity comes
>>>>> to mind.
>>>>
>>>> I never thought that Unity was all that bad. If anything, its mere
>>>> existence forced the developers of other desktop environments to improve
>>>> their work, at least as far as aesthetics are concerned. I believe that
>>>> the more competition there is, the better each product becomes.
>>>
>>> The whole concept of Unity was to be a "one size fits all" solution for
>>> desktops/laptops, tablets and smartphones. I never bought into that as you
>>> use these platforms differently. Microsoft tried the same thing with Windows
>>> 8, and it was also a failure.
>>>
>>> I went away from Gnome when Gnome 3 came out. I think that's when Linux Mint
>>> really started to climb in popularity. Mate was a reaction to Gnome 3, and
>>> Mint's own Cinnamon came along a bit later. Both are related to Gnome, but
>>> radically different and much more "traditional."
>>>
>>> But choice is good. A lot of people like Gnome and that's fine. Just not
>>> something I like at all.
>>
>> The absolute disgust with Gnome 3 was what drove me to drive it out. I
>> had to see if it was as bad as people claimed that it was. Honestly, in
>> its initial state, you could tell that they had some clever ideas but
>> that they hadn't all been properly implemented yet. However, by the time
>> Gnome 3.28 (I believe) came out, things were pretty good. I wouldn't use
>> it myself today, but it's only because they have subscribed to Marxism
>> and seem intent on destroying themselves.
>
> I don't like the fact that, by default, there's no panel or minimize button
> — and I hate tiling or snapping windows. I guess I'm set in my ways, but I'm
> used to a familiar desktop UI and I don't want something foreign to it for
> the sake of using something different.
>
> I realize other people like Gnome and that's what's good about Linux. Lots of
> choices for different tastes. Fortunately I don't have to use Gnome to use
> Linux.

Exactly. I was happy to get rid of Gnome the moment I found out how
suicidal the organization was in its insistence on catering to people
from Chris Ahlstrom's community. I used to hate moving to KDE because I
preferred the Gnome software and it didn't integrate too well inthe new
choice of environment, but that problem's been resolved for a while now.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

Le 2024-10-19 à 02 h 20, RonB a écrit :
> On 2024-10-18, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:04:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> Gnome, in general, has suffered from the "change for change sake" issue.
>>> But they're the exception, not the rule.
>>
>> I use it but my preference is KDE. Even with going to Wayland it hasn't
>> taken too many weird detours.
>
> Even on Fedora I use Cinnamon. On the HP, which is running KDE Neon, I can
> try out KDE. I could probably get used to it, but I don't see any advantage
> over Cinnamon. Again, Mate and Cinnamon are all I've been using (regularly)
> for about 16 years now, so I know them pretty well.

The advantage of KDE, for me, is in its customization. Unlike Gnome at
least, changing the icons, cursors or window decorations is rather easy.
Cinnamon does it well, but it's not as easy as it is in KDE. Also, the
themes in Cinnamon all look pretty much the same whereas in KDE, you can
make your desktop look radically different than your neighbour's.
Additionally, widgets in KDE actually work as they should.

There are also effects which often end up being a selling point for new
users. The included effects are rather nice, but you can even download
new ones that truly make your desktop feel different. To give you an
example, my windows minimize the way they did in the early versions of
Mac OS X (magic lamp) and I set up the opening and closing of windows to
use a hexagon effect which is similar to what you would see in movies.
It's all useless and does nothing to "improve productivity and click
reduction" or whatver that faggot used to say, but it freaks the kids
out when I share my screen in class.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:20:41 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

>
> Exactly. I was happy to get rid of Gnome the moment I found out how
> suicidal the organization was in its insistence on catering to people
> from Chris Ahlstrom's community. I used to hate moving to KDE because I
> preferred the Gnome software and it didn't integrate too well inthe new
> choice of environment, but that problem's been resolved for a while now.
>

You fucking make me fucking sick, you fucking shallow dilettante.

Your usage of GNU/Linux can be likened to that of some old, decrepit
fart probing his way in the dark.

Get the fuck outa here! GNU/Linux is for SUPERIOR people, and your
imbecillic self wouldn't even qualify as a stupid poseur.