Indexing for Search not working?

users
#21

Hi :slight_smile:
Probably best off using Doc in Atlantis.  Doc seems to have more chance of being displayed at least nearly correctly in a greater range of different programs.  I think it's likely that Odt will begin to replace that within a few years.

Again, Doc was created by MS but NOT as a format to increase compatibility between programs!  Ooooh the irony.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#22

Just tried it with DOC. It works.

It truly is ironic. I've always like RTF precisely because of its relatively wide compatibility.

It seems as if RTF has been rendered obsolete and irrelevant.

Virgil

#23

and now we're 3 :slight_smile:

#24

very good points.

       I do like the idea of having 2: the reliable one for use and the
newest version for testing.

Hi :slight_smile:

#25

Yes, I think we both (and I am sure that there are many more) want the same thing: LO being successful and known as the best Office package and available also for people who just cannot afford to buy an Office package.

I also understand that devs are easier to get for programming new features because this frontier work. I can understand this very well because I used to work on frontier work myself for many years.

However, I also learned that things must be made stable. My business now is nothing else but making operations stable. Coming from that point of view I only can encourage devs to put in all their pride in getting LO branches stable ASAP. I feel good when I get an operation stable and a dev can feel the same way. It might even be harder to get bugs out because it must first be understood what causes the bug.

If I would learn about a dev who removed a bug I reported, I thank him personally! (If there is a list where I can see it, I appreciate a lot information on where such a list is published on the web.)

I can not contribute more than bug reporting. I do this for all bugs I find and which I can document somehow. It takes me a lot of time - a loss in my productivity - but I am willing to do so. My small contribution to the LO project which I like. Currently I only can do this for my production version (3.5.6.2). But I would actually like to run 2 versions on my PC: a stable one with almost no bugs, and a newer one with new features and bugs. (This idea was expressed already by Tom, anne-ology and maybe some other as well.) By doing so I can use time for searching bugs in the newer version, and when I am very busy (= I need a high productivity) I can just use the stable version. For me such a possibility would push the LO project forward at very high speed.

The success of SW is a combination of features and stability (= productivity increase). This means the right balance is needed. The right balance of dev power for new feature compared to dev power to fix bugs is the trick task which need to be done.

#26

Hi :slight_smile:
The upgrade from 3.5.x to 3.5.7 is extremely unlikely to cause problems.  That 3rd digit is roughly like a "Service Pack" number, but divide it by 2 because MS only does 3 SPs whereas LO does 6 or 7.

The 3.x.7 aims at avoiding introducing new features!  New features are mostly in the 3.6.x or being lined-up for the 3.7.0.  The 3.5.7 is likely to just have fixes for any lingering problems in the 3.5.6.  Most of those fixes will be being merging into the 3.6.3 and .4.  At least that's how i imagine it works.  Certainly once that 3rd digit reaches .4 the branch seems a lot  more stable.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#27

Thanks for this explanations. I will now make the step to 3.5.7....On 18.10.2012 18:41, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)The upgrade from 3.5.x to 3.5.7 is extremely unlikely to cause
        problems.That 3rd digit is roughly like a "Service Pack"
        number, but divide it by 2 because MS only does 3 SPs whereas LO
        does 6 or 7.The 3.x.7 aims at avoiding introducing new features!New
        features are mostly in the 3.6.x or being lined-up for the
        3.7.0.The 3.5.7 is likely to just have fixes for any lingering
        problems in the 3.5.6.Most of those fixes will be being
        merging into the 3.6.3 and .4.At least that's how i imagine it
        works.Certainly once that 3rd digit reaches .4 the branch
        seems a lotmore stable.Regards fromTom :slight_smile:
                    working?
and now we're 3:-)On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Dr. R. O Stapfreinhold@stapf-online.comwrote:On 17.10.2012 16:07, Pertti Rnnberg wrote:BRAVO Anne-Ology!!Exactly that message - only in other words -- I
                have repeatedly tried totell to the LibO-experts (devs) since January:they must take a brake in developing and take a
                certain version (e.g.3.4.xx) and make every module of the suite -
                Base included - absolutelyfree of bugs and inconsistencies both in
                programming and the instructionsand especially the LibO-Help.Every feature shall have a clear explanation
                and a detailed guidinghow-to in the LibO-Help -- easily understood by
                any average non-expertuser.I cannot agree more.I started with 3.5.4 a few month ago and saw some
                problems disappearing in3.5.5 and 3.5.6. Currently I am hesitating to
                upgrade to 3.5.7.I hope the dev-team listens to Pertti's words.--For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.orgProblems?http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/Posting guidelines + more:http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/NetiquetteList archive:http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived
                and cannot be deleted

#28

Tom,
That info of yours is not only interesting but very important for me as an user - and most certainly for others too.
Unfortunately you add that "it is how you imagine it works"!

Would it be possible that you check that with the board or the devs themselves and then confirm it to us?
If I were you I definitely would like to be sure about the proceedings - (a) if such really has been settled or (b) if not settled?

Some posts ago I asked what version is for the time being considered the most reliable, especially regarding Base?
-- and what version of JRE is in that version needed for Base (if anymore needed)?
I have read the release notes and got an picture but what is your opinion?
My version now is LibO3.4.6 on Win7Pro/32 and Win7/64.
Pertti Rönnberg

#29

Hi :slight_smile:
Thanks :)   [bows]

Each time i ask around i seem to get closer to the answer but everyone has their own ideas and many seem to be just plain wrong or wishful thinking.  I've kinda distilled it down to what i wrote.

1.  It's a moving target
2.  The 'best' imo really depends on what you are looking for.

For me i think the "best for meeting my deadlines" is the latest release in the older branch.  I've gotten used to the older branch and know what to expect from it.  So right now that's the 3.5.7.  Fairly soon it's going to be the 3.6.4.

Most of work's machines are on 3.5.4 (i think) and that's good enough.  So i'll only be using 3.5.7 on my own machine until i get a chance to upgrade them all at the same time.  It doesn't matter if i miss the 3.5.7 and end-up upgrading them all to the 3.6.4 as long as i get a quick test drive of that before rolling it out.  I like to try to keep them all on the same version but it's not really necessary.

Sadly JRE is a tfn.  Best to avoid it completely if at all possible. 
Tools - Options - Java
and untick the box.  Does anything grumble while using LO?  If not then keep it off.  If something grumbles about not being able to open or whatever then switch Java on again and re-open whatever it was.

Generally it's 'best' for your machine to have the latest Java but they upgrade every month so it's not always possible.  Also we have just heard from Stuart from the Accessibility List that some combinations of LO and Java don't allow screen-readers to work properly.  Luckily i don't need a screen-reader so i can just keep the latest JRE switched off in the background (in case i ever need it in a hurry).  Stuart's post about the Java Access Bridge (JAB) and JRE made me doubly glad i'm not blind.  Although if i was i might not have read his post and not be fretting about it now.  If you don't need a screen-reader then you don't need the JAB and you can rest easy and probably entirely avoid java altogether.

Hmmm, my boss uses Hotmail which seems to demand java for it's login and he has the one from last month so hotmail is now refusing to let him login until he upgrades java.  I shouldn't laugh because Yahoo is just as bad really although i'm plesed to find the login doesn't seem to require java.

Luckily you can have 2 or more versions of java although it's generally a bad idea.  Hopefully your web-browsers and stuff all pick-up on the latest one.  You can set which one LO uses from that
Tools - Options - Java
screen so if you do ever need an older version of java that might be the best way.  Best is to "just say no" :wink:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#30

As far as Base is concerned, I have not been having any problems with 3.4.6, 3.5.6, nor 3.6.2. (I just installed 3.6.3.2 which is a release candidate. For my personal databases I use the most, I use MySQL as the backend with any of these LO Base versions as the front end. I work with Base 3.6.3.2 for my writing. This database is embedded and contains only sample data (no important data contained in it). As far as JRE, I use 1.6.0_24 (openjdk). LO seems to prefer this.
      I also use AOO 3.4.1 at times. It seems to prefer the Openjdk 1.7.0_07.
      The main problem with Base is the potential for data loss when the program is not shutdown properly. This can be avoided by extracting the data from the database file and then use Base to connect to the data. (The data files are extracted to a separate folder.) Unfortunately, it does not improve the speed of Base.

--Dan

#31

Hi :slight_smile:
Dan, does that data-loss happen when you use MySql?  I thought it only happened with the embedded HsqlDb?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#32

You are right: because Base holds all the data in memory until shutdown, embedded HSQLDB databases can loss data if shutdown is not done correctly. MySQL keeps the data stored within its installed folder. Base connects to the MySQL server which accesses the data. The same thing is true for you favorite MySQL replacement (Mariadb).

--Dan

#33

Hi :slight_smile:
Phew! :)  Thanks Dan.  So Postgresql and the rest should be fine too [crosses fingers].  It's good to know i haven't misunderstood or just got it wrong. 
Thanks and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

________________________________
From: Dan Lewis <elderdanlewis@gmail.com>
To: Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "users@global.libreoffice.org" <users@global.libreoffice.org>
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 15:47
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Indexing for Search not working?

You are right: because Base holds all the data in memory until shutdown, embedded HSQLDB  databases can loss data if shutdown is not done correctly. MySQL keeps the data stored within its installed folder. Base connects to the MySQL server which accesses the data. The same thing is true for you favorite MySQL replacement (Mariadb).

--Dan

Hi :slight_smile:

Dan, does that data-loss happen when you use MySql?  I thought it only happened with the embedded HsqlDb?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

________________________________
From: Dan Lewis <elderdanlewis@gmail.com>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 15:04
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Indexing for Search not working?

As far as Base is concerned, I have not been having

                any problems with 3.4.6, 3.5.6, nor 3.6.2. (I just
                installed 3.6.3.2 which is a release candidate. For my
                personal databases I use the most, I use MySQL as the
                backend with any of these LO Base versions as the front
                end. I work with Base 3.6.3.2 for my writing. This
                database is embedded and contains only sample data (no
                important data contained in it). As far as JRE, I use
                1.6.0_24 (openjdk). LO seems to prefer this.

I also use AOO 3.4.1 at times. It seems to prefer

                the Openjdk 1.7.0_07.

The main problem with Base is the potential for data

                loss when the program is not shutdown properly. This can
                be avoided by extracting the data from the database file
                and then use Base to connect to the data. (The data
                files are extracted to a separate folder.)
                Unfortunately, it does not improve the speed of Base.

--Dan

Tom,
That info of yours is not only interesting but very

                important for me as an user - and most certainly for
                others too.

Unfortunately you add that "it is how you imagine

                it works"!

Would it be possible that you check that with the

                board or the devs themselves and then confirm it to us?

If I were you I definitely would like to be sure

                about the proceedings - (a) if such really has been
                settled or  (b) if not settled?

Some posts ago I asked what version is for the time

                being considered the most reliable, especially regarding
                Base?

-- and what version of JRE is in that version

                needed for Base (if anymore needed)?

I have read the release notes and got an picture

                but what is your opinion?

My version now is LibO3.4.6 on Win7Pro/32 and

                Win7/64.

Pertti Rönnberg

Hi :slight_smile:
The upgrade from 3.5.x to 3.5.7 is extremely

                unlikely to cause problems.  That 3rd digit is roughly
                like a "Service Pack" number, but divide it by 2 because
                MS only does 3 SPs whereas LO does 6 or 7.

The 3.x.7 aims at avoiding introducing new

                features!  New features are mostly in the 3.6.x or being
                lined-up for the 3.7.0.  The 3.5.7 is likely to just
                have fixes for any lingering problems in the 3.5.6. 
                Most of those fixes will be being merging into the 3.6.3
                and .4.  At least that's how i imagine it works. 
                Certainly once that 3rd digit reaches .4 the branch
                seems a lot  more stable.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:
________________________________

From: anne-ology <laginnis@gmail.com>
To: Dr. R. O Stapf <reinhold@stapf-online.com>
Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 2:31
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Indexing

                for Search not working?

and now we're 3  :slight_smile:

BRAVO Anne-Ology!!
Exactly that message - only in

                other words -- I have repeatedly tried to

tell to the LibO-experts (devs)

                since January:

they must take a brake in

                developing and take a certain version (e.g.

3.4.xx) and make every module of

                the suite - Base included - absolutely

free of bugs and inconsistencies

                both in programming and the instructions

and especially the LibO-Help.
Every feature shall have a clear

                explanation and a detailed guiding

how-to in the LibO-Help -- easily

                understood by any average non-expert

user.

I cannot agree more.
I started with 3.5.4 a few month ago

                and saw some problems disappearing in

3.5.5 and 3.5.6. Currently I am

                hesitating to upgrade to 3.5.7.

I hope the dev-team listens to Pertti's

                words.

-- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to:

                users+help@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