![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
This doesn't really seem to be a good move by Microsoft as it would drive many people away it!. it is such a great thing that Lo exists
YES!!!
That is why I posted this info to the list.
Now there is one more thing that it an advantage of LO over MSO. You do not have to rent it.
I do not know how many people would be comfortable with renting software. I really would not trust MS not raising the rental fee for year two. Then there is the issue of having some code that MS will send to either give you another year of service or to disable MSO from being used. I would bet that there will be a "virus" that would be made and sent out that will disable such a built in enable/disable license code system.
Hi LiBO folks and especially LibO developers
Microsoft's desicion to start renting their software puts ordinary people (and companies) in a fortune with very uncertain costs ahead.
Should it not be now - if ever! - the perfect time for the LibO devs to take a break in developing new features in the LibO suite and from a certain version start making all LibO's functions and its every existing feature working smoothly and and stable and free of problems and bugs -- from the very beginning: from installing (with or without JavaJRE), Base and its embedded HDBAQL and its Report Builder, all included.
And to complete-update the guiding documents (esp. LibO Help) to an good working quality level so it is understandable and usable for every one.
Better late than never if you want LibO to be really accepted!
Regards
Pertti Rönnberg
No, it is not a good idea to take a break.
But it is time to tell those people who do use MSO that they are changing their pricing policy and almost forcing their users to rent their products in the near future.
It is time that the users start thinking about their long term use of MS's Office and other business software. You no longer will be able to buy their products in any reasonable price, for MS that is, and not know if you rent it for X dollars for the first year, it will not go up to 150% of X dollars in year two. You will then have to pay their "ransom" or you loose the ability to use the software on your computer.
Then there is the multi-license discount - or should it be the end of the multi-license discount. Businesses with 50 or 100 computers will be required to but a single user license for every computer at $150+ per license. The rental agreement plan is not that much better of an option.
So now you can say that every computer they own can have a copy of LO for free. Every updated or new version of LO will be free, unlike MSO's policy. No need to rent or buy anything office suite package anymore. FREE now and FREE in the future.
MSO just wants to force a user to pay them over and over for the same software, for as long as you live. Then when you die, you heirs will be forced to pay MS's blood money for the rest of their lives. This maybe a good plan as a revenue generation, but not for the users.
I think MS renting MSO is a golden opportunity for some marketing;
particularly in the US.
<snip>
I have not bought any MSO past MSO-2003. I moved to OpenOffice.org [as soon as it read/saved .doc files] till LO 3.3.0 came out. Then I moved to LO for all my systems, Windows and Linux.
Now I create/update the NA-DVD [http://libreoffice-na.us/English-3.5-installs/index.html] project and a 773,000 American Spelling Dictionary for LO.
Dear mr Webmaster,
I agree with you about the risks with Microsoft's possible actions in the future -- let us hope we are wrong.
I am afraid you got me wrong -- my fault.
What I meant by the "break" in developing LibO, was that the LibO's developers for a while should stop proceeding.
They must take one specific version of LibO (especially for Windows as the main OS) and make it absolutely free of bugs and failures -- and plus that make the documentations complete and understandable (and thus usable) for ordinary non-expert computer users.
And then - after that - continue again.
Why? Because I have been a Windows user since early -80 and installed OpenO decades ago.
Last January this year I downloaded LibO (3.4.5) with the main intention to use Base -- but experienced that much problems - first with the installing & JRE and then with many basic functions and especially with the embedded HDBSQL and especially with the quite horrible unlogical documentations -- that I have given up. I am quite sure that I am not alone!
Since January I have followed the discussions on this list and am getting even more convinced that LibO is not really meant for ordinary people as an alternative to MSO. It seems mainly to be a playground for a group of open-source enthusiasts with a language of their own.
Whom are the new features and finesses meant for, when there is no general info about them and no guiding documentation until 3-4 version generations later? Meanwhile they have only caused problems.
When I download a what-ever program for my needs, I want it to work and to work stable and smoothly.
I have no need nor time to struggle with different problems, to investigate and test different workarounds -- nor asking for help and waiting perhaps days for an answer that might help if I only happen to understand the advice.
Frustration can easily be limited by paying to Microsoft.
Best regards
Pertti Rönnberg
I think this is a very fair point. Versions of Ubuntu have an LTS version
without stopping the development chain progress. It would be really useful
to have a really mature and settled LTS version of LO that businesses could
use with confidence.
The reality of documentation is that very few people are willing to help produce it. This is true of Base more so than the other components of LO. All of it is done by volunteers. If people want better documentation, they need to do something about it. That means personally testing various features and document what they find. It also means people stepping forward to work with others to make the documentation better by collaborating.
--Dan
Dan,
I feel your point even if hidden. I understand your reaction but what you say is not an explanation nor a solution - it does not change the fact that the Base's documentation is to some extend misleading, uncomplete and not congruent with the programmed features. If you are The Dan that has worked with the docs you have done a good job so far, but it must be finished! And obviously you cannot do everything alone.
I personally can not help even if I wanted to: I am no programmer and I do not not know the inner build-up of nor the relationships between Base's features and finesses.
I only am (was!) an user and can only contribute by proposing - and that I have done without results - as far as I know.
I try again:
> if you cannot get Base working as a standalone "database" (like MSAccess) then take the Base module away from the LibO suite
> or replace the old embedded HDBSQL v1.8 with a modern xxxSQL
> or make Base clearly an front-end (by totally removing the embedded part) and advice users to an specific "real" background database (MySQL, SQLite, etc) and give them an easy-to-use and really working software&docs for the connecting
> reprogram LibO/Base so that a form can be built based on a query (not only on a table) and then write/complete docs about how to build forms and subforms manually (no wizard)
> borrow the Report Builder from OO and make it (really!) working in LibO -- together with working docs about how-to
> inform the user how to make a cover page (Mainform) for the database from where to open forms, reports, etc
That as a beginning.
If or when Base works without problems and without bothering that list, I am lazy enough to start using the rest of the LibO-suite.
Best regards
Pertti Rönnberg
You are free to use any database that works for you and connect a Base
document to it. If Base is too simplistic and underdeveloped you are free to
connect some other frontend to your database (I use to recommend MS Access
as perfect desktop frontend for free databases). Databases do exist. They
are ubiquitous online and behind your desktop. There are plenty of tools and
database professionals. Professionals earn their living with software tools
which are not availlable for free. It is not the duty of this project to
provide a full featured environment for database developers. Anything beyond
simple mail merge connections is a gift.
Yes, I agree in that most parts of Base can and should be removed. Drop all
wizards and drop the embedded database. Drop the odb document type. Nobody
understands the odb document with no data in it but connected to something.
Keep the connectivity and simple input forms. Restore stand-alone Writer
reports as in OOo 1. Dumb down this office suite. And while you're in it:
Drop StarBasic.
Even pure read-only access with no input forms would be much better than the
unfinished and misleading crap that had been added to OOo2. With pure
read-only access, I had to replace my office forms with some browser based
stuff. So what?
Dan,
I feel your point even if hidden. I understand your reaction but what you say is not an explanation nor a solution - it does not change the fact that the Base's documentation is to some extend misleading, uncomplete and not congruent with the programmed features. If you are The Dan that has worked with the docs you have done a good job so far, but it must be finished! And obviously you cannot do everything alone.
Yes, I am "The Dan", and progress has been very slow so far without any help. Besides I am no programer nor have I taken any courses in database theory. It has come from searching the Internet for information. I do have an advantage over some people: I have a mathematical background. Why do I do this? It is a challenge to me, and this is the main point. People are much more likely to get things done if they accept a challenge.
I personally can not help even if I wanted to: I am no programmer and I do not not know the inner build-up of nor the relationships between Base's features and finesses.
I only am (was!) an user and can only contribute by proposing - and that I have done without results - as far as I know.
I try again:
> if you cannot get Base working as a standalone "database" (like MSAccess) then take the Base module away from the LibO suite
> or replace the old embedded HDBSQL v1.8 with a modern xxxSQL
HSQLDB 1.8 is not the real problem: it is the OOo chose to embed the database files within the database document file. As a fork, LO has continued it. In fact, I requested that some changes be made a long the line you mention. The reply by a developer was: it is not going to happen. There is the incompatibility problem that could hamper any LO installment containing large number of databases. (How does one change things over?) Meanwhile all of these databases are subject to data loss because they will not make a change over.
The database files in an embedded database can be extracted to their own folder, add a prefix to each one of them, tell Base what hsqldb.jar file to use, and use the Base Wizard to connect to these files using JDBC. Now the database files serve as the backend, and Base can serve as the front end. This works for either HSQLDB 1.8 that came with LO, or later versions that you download and install on your computer from the HSQLDB website. Some of my databases require using 1.8 and others require using 2.2.8. One of my LO versions uses 1.8 and another uses 2.2.8. (The two versions of hsqldb are incompatible though.
I have also installed MySQL on my computer and use the MySQL Connector extension 1.0.1. I use Base as a frontend for MySQL.
--Dan
Hi 
The docs team is working on translating a Base handbook from German. It's seems to be approaching Base from a different angle from the guide Dan is working on. If you would like to try translating from German to English that would hugely help in at least getting something out there, or 'just' proofreading would help!
I think that in the longer-term the 2 guides will complement each other quite nicely. One of the problems with writing a guide to Base is there are so many different directions and approaches to take. People sometimes join the team and get all keen about writing a guide but doing so by starting from scratch and doing things completely differently instead of just helping with the current plan. So, hopefully the handbook will satisfy most of those people and will hopefully show that Dan's way is also worth completing.
A few of us have asked TDF's BoD for a bit of help and they say TDF has higher priorities and is unwilling to even give Base it's own mailing list. TDF has over 100 mailing lists already and the BoD say an extra 1 would be too much extra work. A dedicated Base list would probably be very low-traffic but would allow the various isolated individuals (that are currently scattered across various lists) to work together more easily and co-ordinate efforts.
I think most people that are serious about Base use the OpenOffice forums and mailing-lists that are dedicated to Base and now that OO has a more secure longer-term and is more willing to work with TDF rather than against us it seems the best option to save duplication of effort.
When Dan (the star) completed his Chapter 1 and posted it onto the wiki
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Publications
there was a sudden resurgence of activity. One or 2 people worked on translating the French FAQ into English and completed the whole of the Base section before work petered out. (mostly Alex (who had probably written the original French Faq!))
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq
So, there is a fair bit to be positive about. The German handbook was only found a couple of weeks ago and already has a chapter or 2 translated with more on the way. Proof-reading would help! Fully translating an entire chapter is quite hard work but just proof-reading someone else's translation might help. Screenshots are also often done separately and there is probably a guide on how the doc's team likes them done.
Regards from
Tom
Hi Tom,
If you don't mind waiting 'til after the end of this month I am willing
to help. I am quite well versed in LO, but Base is the only module I
have never even opened yet. So, I see it as an opportunity to learn and
help at the same time.
Translating from German to English shouldn't be a problem to me. I know
both languages on a sufficient level and I have semi-professional
experience with editing and translating texts.
If you think I can help with either proofreading or translating, just
let me know and I'll contact you in about two weeks. (I have some
deadlines to meet before that.)
Grx HdV
Hi
It takes a little while to set-up user&password on the ODFauthors website used by the LO Docs Team (amongst others). I'm sure there will still be plenty to do in 2 weeks! I'm not really "in" the docs team but i just lurk on their list a bit.
Regards from
Tom
Hi
You don't need to be experienced with LibreOffice and definitely do NOT have to be a programmer or dev. I think writing documentation requires a different skill-set. Ideally some person that is completely new to LibreOffice would be involved in proof-reading or reviewing or something for each chapter but as people go through doucumentation they quickly understand more and cease to be seen as such noobs. Only a real noob has a genuine understanding of what is easier for some noobs to understand! So, please feel free to join in quickly before you understand too much about LibreOffice!
Already a lot of people think that joining in means becoming a dev but there are many, many other parts of this project and it can be good to move around helping in different areas until you find an area that really suits you and can really enjoy for a while
Welcome in!
Regards from
Tom
Hi
+1
Regards from
Tom
Hi
The following is part of a lively discussion on the users list about MS
pricing plans.
I have been thinking about idea the John put forward of having an LTS
version similar to Ubuntu's LTS versions (and other distros) .
IMHO most businesses (probably most users) do not need to update when a
new release comes out. But they need to know that for x years this
release of LO will be supported and what is included in the support.
Thus, they only need to replace less frequently LO, lessening their
deployment costs and aggravations.