Quickstarter is missing from LO3.5.5. on Debian

users
#21

>
>> I thought most debian releases had unity or at least GNOME 3 as their
>> GUI and they all feature a Dock.
> There is no Unity for virtually anything apart from Ubuntu (+derivatives, such
> as Kubuntu, Mint etc.). Fedora and Arch had packages for 2D version (that is
> fallback version without desktop effects), but at least Fedora strongly
> considered removing them. Unity was never in Debian repository. There was some
> team that wanted to package Unity and put it Debian's repo, but there hasn't
> been any progress for quite long time. It's unlikely to see Unity in Debian
> anytime soon, if ever.
>
> But most of distributions out there has packages of GNOME 3, yes.

I use MATE with my Ubuntu 12.04 desktop, instead of GNOME 3 or Unity.
Works better for me.

I do not like a tablet-looking environment for my desktop work. Win8
went this route and it was just bad.

As for the quickstart, well I prefer to have start icons on my top
panel. Some extensions need the quickstart to be "turned off" to
update, of at least they use to when I used a quickstart.

I find that with a desktop running a mid-range 2 year old CPU, LO starts
up very fast compared to what it did last year, so a quick starting
option is no longer needed.

Hi Tim,

I couldn't agree more with that last comment.

Here is a quick screen capture I did for an example:
https://plus.google.com/b/100933269401814278228/100933269401814278228/posts/K157cWoutd5

In the video it starts just as I click on the LibO icon on the desktop.
As I say in the post there this is a warm start - then I open the about
box just to show the version.

Best wishes,

//drew

#22

Hi Drew

I noticed from the video that you are using 3.6 beta. How long have you been using it for and is sufficiently stable to rely on for academic work? Any noticeable advantages over 3.5.*?

Cheers
AG

#23

>>>

<snip>

>>
>> I find that with a desktop running a mid-range 2 year old CPU, LO starts
>> up very fast compared to what it did last year, so a quick starting
>> option is no longer needed.
> Hi Tim,
>
> I couldn't agree more with that last comment.
>
> Here is a quick screen capture I did for an example:
> https://plus.google.com/b/100933269401814278228/100933269401814278228/posts/K157cWoutd5
>
> In the video it starts just as I click on the LibO icon on the desktop.
> As I say in the post there this is a warm start - then I open the about
> box just to show the version.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> //drew
>

Hi Drew

I noticed from the video that you are using 3.6 beta. How long have you
been using it for and is sufficiently stable to rely on for academic
work? Any noticeable advantages over 3.5.*?

Actually over all it seems rather stable - I've run into rough spots
with one extension is all.

As for the video being 'so yesterday' - seems 3.5 RC1 is out and ready -
from the announcement a few minutes ago:

"Please be aware that LibreOffice 3.6.0 RC1 is not ready for
production use, you should continue to use LibreOffice 3.5.5 for that.

The release is available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X from our QA
builds download page at

  http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/

The (still growing) list of features for the upcoming 3.6.0 is on our
wiki - please help filling gaps there, e.g. by providing more
screenshots:

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/3.6 "

so - I haven't tired that RC with my problematic extension, it is still
only a 'candidate'.

//drew

#24

Hi AG :slight_smile:
It is a good idea to run the 3.6.0 beta in parallel with your existing version.
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel

There is no need to wipe one in order to run the other.  However stable something is on other people's machines (or unstable for that matter) is irrelevant.  What matters is how stable it is on YOUR machine and that is something no-one knows until YOU try it.

One advantage with test-driving the early pre-releases of a branch is that IF you have problems then it's easy to catch the devs interest in fixing it while they are keen and excited about the new branch.  Waiting until everyone else is using it means the devs attention is more divided between everyone else's issues.

Typically a new branch means a big step up to a new plateaux of increased compatibility with MS formats, faster start-up and operation, very much increased functionality and a slightly sexier look&feel.

I would definitely recommend taking the 3.6.0 beta out for a test-drive as much as possible asap but keep your older version lurking in the back-ground somewhere jic.  Why wait for other people?

Good luck and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

<snip />

Hi Drew

I noticed from the video that you are using 3.6 beta. How long have you
been using it for and is sufficiently stable to rely on for academic
work? Any noticeable advantages over 3.5.*?

Actually over all it seems rather stable - I've run into rough spots
with one extension is all.

As for the video being 'so yesterday' - seems 3.5 RC1 is out and ready -
from the announcement a few minutes ago:

"Please be aware that LibreOffice 3.6.0 RC1 is not ready for
production use, you should continue to use LibreOffice 3.5.5 for that.

The release is available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X from our QA
builds download page at

http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/

The (still growing) list of features for the upcoming 3.6.0 is on our
wiki - please help filling gaps there, e.g. by providing more
screenshots:

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/3.6 "

so - I haven't tired that RC with my problematic extension, it is still
only a 'candidate'.

//drew

#25

I am quite excited about this release and can't wait to run it on Ubuntu
LTS 12.04! I must say its sad to see no major updates to the
biblographing section. I am hanging in there for the stable release.

#26

Hi :slight_smile:
Is there alreadya  bug-report / feature-request about the bibliography functionality?  If so then now might be a good time to add a comment and i not then now would probably be a good time to write one.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#27

Was there an extension for bibliography, somewhere? I seem to remember seeing one for OOo before LO came out.

The one issue for a "auto" biblio system is I was taught 2 different "preferred" methods to do them at different degree programs. I was told that the "correct" way to do them had changed. It seemed that a lot of things in "tech" writing changes or the years for no better reason than to give the "controlling authorities" something to do and give the college book makers sales. I had three different "English writing" courses over 15 years and each one had a different way as the "correct" way to to bibliographies, footnotes, and other "technical" things in "professional papers".

So, for me, if I had to do biblios, I would look up the current "correct" way and then do things manually. I know it is not as easy as letting a word processor do the "grunt work", but it worked for me. Since I misplaced my writing books 2 moves ago, I do not have any current references on the "correct" way of doing them. I may have to get a reference again, one day.

#28

Yeah, this is really important feature for scientific writing, yet no one seems
to bother about it.

I have used Zotero[1] for few of my papers. So far so good. You can give it
a try. It is open-source software, so you can use it free of charge. There is
also package in Debian repository (xul-ext-zotero - this is Iceweasel/Firefox
extension version). Perhaps you will find it also in Ubuntu.

[1] http://www.zotero.org/

#29

Great! this has been a great find and is exactly what i need! i was
forced to use MO for awhile as a paper I was doing needed Referencing :slight_smile:
continuing my love for opensource!