![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Forgive me, but I thought one of the aims of LO was improvements to
usability. I open emails mailed to me dozens of times a day. Doing Save-As,
or clicking the edit button takes little time I agree, but why is it so
wrong to desire that as the default to save me time?
Hi 
+1
Regards from
Tom
Everything that you get from LaTeX: structure markup instead of
spaghetti formatting, parameterized formatting, etc...Instead of clicking through dozens of dialogboxes for each and every
line of text, slide title, list item, figure, etc. to get
everything the way you want it, you just change a few parameters
once for the whole document and that's it.LibO/OOo already provides this. As did MS Word 5.x for DOS around
1994.MS Word 5.0 for DOS was published in 1989. As the first document
processing software in history that couldn't print. Because MS was
unable/too lazy to supply printer drivers in time for the release.
I'm not saying MS Word for DOS was a good or bad program. My point is even word-processing-for-the-masses programs like MS Word for DOS let the user avoid "clicking through dozens of dialogboxes for each and every line of text". Since forever. By using styles.
It's called "styles". Which incidentally don't provide only
formatting information, but also tell the word processor where that
particular paragraph (or title) sites in the document hierarchycal
structure.The point with MS Word, as (unfortunately) with LO Writer is, that,
unlike e.g. Wordperfect or FrameMaker their document model is thoroughly
unstructured ("spaghetti"), and the way "styles" are implemented they do
not allow to "emulate" "structure markup" convincingly.
Maybe there's a reason why we still have "serious" publishing software although word processing packages have been aroud for decades now.
As soon as you try to author significantly complex documents with it you
will notice this. At least if you've ever done similar work with
document processing software that does allow to use "structure markup".I've used over a dozen different document processing applications over
the past >20 years, and from day one I have always used "structure
markup" without even knowing about the expression since for me it was
just the natural way to work with documents, but I've never used a
document processing software that made "structure markup" as thoroughly
impossible as MS Word or LO/OO.I just cited LaTeX as one example for structure markup. Other
examples are Wordperfect or Framemaker. My point is that LO should
not keep the MS Office-style "spaghetti" content models that were
already outdated in the 80s and pile up features on top, but
instead LO should focus on providing a functional concept that
allows users to work with documents in a more structured and thus
more efficient way. MS Office is by far the worst "example" in the
market. And, as such, the example *not* to follow.Are you complaining that OpenDocument format (which not long ago
became an ISO standard) uses a "spaghetti content model" ?Unfortunately, LO/OO is just a 1:1 clone of MS Office. And yes, the MS
"document model" is plain spaghetti, as is LO/OO's. It's a pity, but
Ok, so you think ODF document model is "spaghetti". Probably it's true. I don't know. We should probably ask TDF about it.
that's the way it is and that's why currently I don't use LO Writer for
anything else than for converting .doc files to .pdf.
LO/OO clearly doesn't satisfy your needs. Good to know.
Am 09.10.2012 11:24, John Clegg wrote:
Forgive me, but I thought one of the aims of LO was improvements to
usability. I open emails mailed to me dozens of times a day. Doing Save-As,
or clicking the edit button takes little time I agree, but why is it so
wrong to desire that as the default to save me time?
As a third option you can tell your mail client to *detach* the
attachment instead of viewing it. It is always your mail client which
creates the read-only file for good reasons. The main reason is that you
lose work when you save your modifications to a temporary file.
Just open some attachment for viewing and get
office-menu:File>Properties...
On the first tab you see the location of the file that has been
extracted from text encoded mail box content. It might be a file in a
temporary folder. It may have a randomized file name. If it were
writable you could edit the file for hours and hours without knowing
where all your work gets written to. After a reboot everything could be
lost because it is normal behaviour that the temporary directory is
cleared on shutdown.
It takes some tiny precautions to specify your own file in your own file
system where you can recall your saved work.
If you are not interested in your own copy of the file because you want
to edit and forward via mail then a simple click on the edit button lets
you edit, send and close without saving.
But then you are aware that you are writing into the memory of your
computer without saving to disk.
Reportedly, there exists an extension for the Thunderbird mail client
which saves all attachments as writable files in a dedicated directory
on your own file system. I don't know any details.
I might just be something a little bit above a IT moron but using LO Writer to convert doc into pdf appears to me like using a tractor to participate in a F1 race or using an F1 race car to plough a field. Why not installing a pdf-writer SW, there are even free-of-charge versions available.
.... but having a pdf-writer incorporated is one of the nice features of LO.
Now please forgive me but I feel that especially the explanations by Andreas pointed out very clearly that r/w features of a file attached to a mail is caused by the email SW. This means, your request needs to be brought into a discussion forum for email SW.
I always use pdfwriter from sourceforge.
OTOH, if one wants to convert MS Word doc file to PDF without instaslling MS softwrae, LO/OO is the only (IME) option.
Yes there are external PDF file writers that are free. doPDF for Windows and CUPS-PDF for Linux are the ones I use. BUT, having an internal Export-to-PDF option is always a food idea. It defaults to the folder the original document file is saved in. External ones do not. Export-to-PDF does have issues with embedding some specialty fonts, but it does not force the PDF file to be in Portrait mode line CUPS-PDF does.
I do not get the race-car vs. tractor image. Are you thinking about a package the just does the conversion instead of having a full office suite that can do it as part of its abilities?
Since PDF is touted as the "standard" format for sending documents or having them online, it is important to make it easy for the users to create a PDF version of their document.
To be honest, I use CUPS-PDF as my "default printer". That way I can print out web pages and only print the physical pages I want. Same with emails and any other package that will allow you to print. Saves a lot of paper that way. Also, LO does not create duplex prints for me, most of the time, do to an issue that came up last year. So creating a PDF file and using the default PDF viewer and printing from there is how I get my duplex printed documents.
That's what I call ignorance. Ignorance plus unwillingness to inform oneself to remedy that ignorance equals idiocy. I don't have anything against idiots, as long as they don't impose their idiocy onto me.
I'm not sure you can blame it on ignorance. Most home users if not SOHO users go to one of the large retail outlets to buy their computers. What do you see in those stores? Row upon row of boxes of MS Office. Nothing else. And why would there be?
And presumably MS give some sort of "incentive" for OEM vendors to include a trial version of MS Office on most new computers which now turns into an adware version of Office if you don't pay for it. Most home users don't need anything else so why should they even bother to look for alternatives?
IT departments, just like "managers" "choose" (in fact, they don't
choose at all) MS because it's not them who have to do the actual
work, so they can't have a clue. And because they're too lazy and
ignorant to get some input from the information workers who have to do
the actual work.
I would dispute that as well. Most IT depts choose MS because that';s what they have passed exams in and know.
And how many of the workers know about alternatives? Not many I'll bet. MS Office has been so overwhelmingly pervading in commercial organisations for so many years now that it is embedded in the corporate consciousness.
I saw this website yesterday http://home.techsoup.org/pages/default.aspx that is supposed to assist Not for Profit organisations (charities) and schools get discounted software. Not a MENTION of open source on their website at all. It was ALL proprietary.
Hi
People like to feel special and feel they have earned a reward. So, discounts work better than just being free. After all if it's free it's not worth anything and if it's not worth anything then is it really worth having at all?
Also if it was free that that just shows how highly my boss/company/whoever values me. ie they don't value me at all. That is why employees given a new Mac have a boost in productivity even on top of the productivity they get for using a safer system where everything works without having to tinker with it.
A lot of the discounted stuff is about to become legacy by the end of this month as various new releases happen. I smugly pointed out to my boss that he bought MSO 2010 just in time because it's not likely to be available soon because the new one is due out any day and we might have missed the chance to even try 2010 at all if the hadn't spent the money when they did.
I just feel really smug and clever because while everyone else keeps having problems with the various things they or the company have bought i just keep getting on with what i want and help them fix theirs.
Regards from
Tom
But Ooo/LO does use structure markup. All .odt/.ods documents are XML
files.
XML is just syntax. It does not necessarily imply structure markup, as
shown by e.g. .docx and .odt. Just unzip an .odt document and open
contents.xml in a XML editor to see what "spaghetti xml" looks like.
Sincerely,
Wolfgang
> that's the way it is and that's why currently I don't use LO Writer
> for anything else than for converting .doc files to .pdf
I might just be something a little bit above a IT moron but using LO
Writer to convert doc into pdf appears to me like using a tractor to
participate in a F1 race or using an F1 race car to plough a field.
Why not installing a pdf-writer SW, there are even free-of-charge
versions available.
The point is that you do not only need a printer driver to generate the
PDF, but also an application that can open those .doc, .ppt etc. files.
Sincerely,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang . . .
I use Writer's "Export to PDF" and CUPS-PDF [Ubuntu 12.04] both, to create PDF "prints" of my document. CUPS-PDF will "print" PDFs for any package that can print to a physical printer. I use doPDF for Windows systems.
"Export to PDF" doesgreat, except for some of the real decortive fonts I may use. Then I need to use CUPS-PDF. The drawback with "CUPS-PDF is the document is always viewed in portrait mode even if the text is aligned in a landscape mode.
To be honest, I even use Writer to create eBooks for my tablet. For some reason, I cannot get my tablet to read my ebooks on the installed microSD card. Kindle for Android does not want to do it. So, after all my "testing" I figured it would be easier to create PDFs that was in the "print size" of a paperback, or at least my 7 inch tablet's screen. Right now, I open the .mobi files,or .epub files, and export them to a plain text file. Then I open them in Writer and use the A6 page size [4.13 by 5.83 inches] and reduce the margins down to .15 inches. Then I export them to a PDF file. That process works well. Actually the only way I can get the Kindle reader to read a file on the added microSD card is to open a PDF file using the file manager. This way will not work with any other file type forKindle, but it does workwith PDF. I do not have a Kindle tablet, but a $100 Trio Stealth Pro, since that was all I could afford at the time.
SO, Writer does a lot of things that a "reader/converter" app cannot do. I cancreate PDF eBooks from free plain text files, or even other file formats with a little help.
I now have 3 six-foot high bookshelf units staked 2 and 3 deep with paperback books. I am currently working on getting as many of those books in both audio and eBook formats. Then, if I ever have to reduce the number of books, or make room for newones, I will have them still in eBook, and maybe audio book, format. Writer helps me take the .epub and .mobi books and convert them into something I can use on my tablet. Of course, I could move/copy them over to the internal 4 GB card, but I would rather leave them on the removable 32 GB microSD card.
Last year, I would not have imagined that I would use Writer, and some helper-apps to make usable eBooks for a tablet. Last year I did not think I would ever buy a table either.
Actually I use Writer for "quick" posters for people. If itis a complex poster, I use Inkscape, but slowly learning what Draw can do. Actually I create anew/revised logo for a non-profit organization that I created the original logo for. I used Draw this time, just to practicewith it.