![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
That's quite right. I don't think they left much out when they made the
free version, and of course it's proprietary--they SELL the full
version. Doesn't mean it won't work in your system.
--doug
May be Denis could try it on his 10 minute calc sheet and compare speeds.
Steve
I dropped them a note requesting a copy of the license. They responded saying there is none. Does this mean that the free version is public domain? I'm not up on German law to know.
John
No, it wouldn't be public domain (at least here in America). There are copyright notices on the program meaning the Softmaker folks have not placed the program into the public domain. There is no legal requirement that software have a license. Without one, a user's rights would be determined by the applicable copyright laws. It has been many years since I've reviewed the U.S. software copyright laws, but as I understand it, the law would permit you install it on one computer and then make a backup copy for archival purposes.
Virgil
I believe the commercial version allows for multiple installs under one license. Check their website for details.
Hi 
When things don't seem to have a license i sometimes point them
towards an appropriate copy-left form of copyright. In my work that
would be suggesting the Creative Commons licenses but for programs the
GPL seems most apt. If they GPL'd it then it might be interesting!
I thought "public Domain" was only valid in the USA?
As for why bother to try other Office Suites or other programs there
are many possible reasons;
1. curiosity
2. to see if their claims have any validity
3. you are probably already at least fairly familiar with at least 2
office suites and that is likely to make it easier for you to poke
around at another one and that increases your flexibility helping you
stay "future proof"
4. gain better understanding of why certain things are done in a
certain way or to see possibly better ways of doing things that might
be good to post as "feature requests"
5. to see if you stumble on interesting functionality (err this is
same as 4 really)
In this one's particular case it might be handy to have it installed
jic you get a document in an MS format to see if it does look
different. Each version of MS Office implements it's formats in
slightly different ways. Those differences are not publicised so it
takes a lot of work to find out and implement those changes. Becoming
more compatible with one version of MS Office presumably sometimes
involves becoming slightly less compatible with another. If our
long-term view was to keep chasing MS then it would mean ensuring that
MS is always in the lead. if someone else is doing that better right
now then it might be good to take advantage of the short time they
remain viable. If they can save in a more reliable format that other
programs can open with less hassle then they might provide a good
stepping-stone for a while.
ODF usage is on the rise and maybe a stepping stone might smooth the
way for a while. Hopefully as uptake of LibreOffice (and the other
programs that also use the same format natively) increases then some
of that will increase the usage of our native formats. On my
company's server we now have quite a few documents in ODF formats that
open reliably on every machine alongside other documents in MS formats
that don't always open well in different versions of MS Office. The
MS ones keep needing to be redone.
Regards from
Tom
Hi
/snip/
ODF usage is on the rise and maybe a stepping stone might smooth the
way for a while. Hopefully as uptake of LibreOffice (and the other
programs that also use the same format natively) increases then some
of that will increase the usage of our native formats. On my
company's server we now have quite a few documents in ODF formats that
open reliably on every machine alongside other documents in MS formats
that don't always open well in different versions of MS Office. The
MS ones keep needing to be redone.Regards from
Tom
/snip/
Pretty near all Unix and Linux program names are acronyms, so,
ODF--One Dumb Format ???
Not serious, but it COULD be....
--doug
Hi
D for Document, of course.
Weirdly there is a lot less wording in the ISO specification for it.
MS's OOXML has a lot more words but then doesn't stick to it's own
specifications quite so well. Accidents are only to be expected so we
are all just supposed to buy their newer version to keep up.
Alternatively use the Open Document Format that is less wordy but
stuck to more closely by a wide range of different programs.
If you look through bug-reports you see some that are about accidental
divergence from the standard even though it doesn't actually create a
problem. The aim is to get closer to the specification for greater
interoperability.
When MS say "interoperability" they seem to mean as long as everyone
is on the same OS and version as each other and using the same version
of MS Office but i mean multi-platform and any version.
Regards from
Tom
Tom wrote:
As for why bother to try other Office Suites or other programs there
are many possible reasons;
...
My reason for trying other programs is my obsessive search for software perfection. My "thing" is word processing, and ever since I abandoned DOS (and my PC-Write) in favor of Windows, I have searched for the perfect word processor. Of course, it doesn't exist, and in recent months, it has occurred to me that word processing is a much different operation than it was 20 years ago.
In the past, nearly every document we wrote was going to be printed, usually on some letter-sized paper (U.S. letter, or A4). We prepared our documents for the printer, and, our word processors were designed around this publication model. As Anne often calls them, computers were little more than glorified electronic typewriters. Word processors open up with a WYSIWYG screen, showing a letter-sized piece of paper. We have a typewriter style ribbon at the top of the screen, on which we can set margins and tab stops, just like I can do on my early 20th Century Underwood. And, yet, today, many, if not most documents prepared on word processors will never see a piece of paper. Between the Internet, and e-books, documents are now being read onscreen. Here in the U.S., most Federal Courts require lawyers to file their documents electronically, and even thought they are now read on a computer screen, they are still formatted for 8.5 x 11 inch paper using fonts designed for paper printing rather than the computer screen.
Now, when I'm preparing a document, I first ask myself, "where will this be read?" I'm now finding myself using markdown editors (ReText, WriteMonkey) more and more. They provide a simple way of editing text, without concern for paper formatting, using "markdown" codes, such as # for a heading, *italics*, **boldface**, etc. Documents are saved as pure text files, alleviating any concern about file formats. They are then compiled, in which the markdown codes are replaced with HTML codes, perfect for displaying onscreen or in an e-reader. Character and paragraph formatting is governed by Cascading Style Sheets. Print formatting is governed by the browser used to view the document. Users can then concentrate on the content and logical organization of their document, much in the same way LaTeX separates logical formatting from visual formatting.
The markdown codes reduce the need to fiddle around with paragraph styles in individual documents (yes, CSSs can be used in the same way as paragraph styles). While I love the power and formatting consistency provided by paragraph styles, I have, over the years, literally spent *hours* creating and editing my styles. And, then, (as Kracked-P has noted), when I send my document to a colleague who doesn't understand my style structure (or the concept of styles in the first place), everything gets messed up.
I think it's time to look at word processing from a new model. Rather than continuing to mimic the typewriter in document creation, I think it's time we found ways to create documents for a wide range of reading options -- paper, computer screen, e-book, iPhone, etc. Then, find ways to allow writers to concentrate on the content of their writing, keeping the word processor itself out of the way.
Virgil
In other words, find a dsektop publishing system and then find a way to let a writer concentrate on writing rather than DTPing. I thought that was what a word processor was for in the first place.
In other words, find a dsektop publishing system and then find a way to
let a writer concentrate on writing rather than DTPing. I thought that
was what a word processor was for in the first place.
No, find a _word processor_ not a desktop publisher. Forget all this
"styles" nonsense--let somebody else format the pages for publication in
a magazine or book! As someone earlier in this thread pointed out,
a lot of what's written on a computer is not going to be printed on
paper at all! Just write your document in a nice readable font, like
Times-Roman, in a readable size, like 12-point, or even 14-point, leave
a space between paragraphs, and be done with it!
Just my 2¢!
--doug
Okay, my sarcasm didn't come through on that last post.
Use styles and templates, and you don't even have to worry about font sizes or
leaving spaces between paragraphs. That's the whole point of what you dismiss
as "nonsense" -- by taking a little time to set things up at the start, you
save time in the long run.
I set up the styles and templates I needed when I first started using
OpenOffice.org soon after its 1.0 release. With some minor modifications, I've
used them ever since. I figure I must save the equivalent of about 3-4 days a
year by using them.
Of course, if you want to do things the hard way, nothing's stopping you. But
typography, styles and templates didn't stop being essential because a lot of
documents are only used online. All that viewing online means is that the
optimal formatting changes a little.
I did wonder. But I've heard the same sentiments expressed seriously, and, not
knowing you, I couldn't be sure if you meant them.