undo functionality

users
#21

Bo Siltberg schreef op 01-06-2016 19:46:

If you lose work because of limited undo then there is something wrong
with your method of working.
Anyhow, go into *Options -> LibreOffice -> Memory* and raise the *Undo
number of steps*.

I think people have a right to their own way of working, and you don't
have a say in that.

You would be correct - but in the same vein, people who choose to work
in such a way that cause them pain have no one else but themselves to blame.

You allusion that the feature is unnecessary

Eh? What feature? I haven't seen any reference to a specific feature.

clearly also states that the ones who have implemented it in the
first place, or those who have come before and have created such
features for as long as computers exist, must clearly be in the wrong
and now you know the real truth, because it doesn't exist in
LibreOffice, so that must be right.

WHAT feature? What are you rambling about??

Common sense is clearly defunct here again.

Yes, but you are aware that talking to yourself on a public email list
just might make people question your sanity.

Your argument has the form of "It doesn't exist now, so you don't
really need it" as if the past choices of developers are always
right, and current complaints, never are.

And your statement really comes down to what they call bigotry,

Bigotry? What in bogs name are you yammering about? This is a support
list for users of Libreoffice, not a platform for you to engage in PC
(politically correct, not personal computer - lol) rants.

Now you say "It is not in the product, so you don't need it".

Ummm... please do not deliberately mis-quote people. He did not say that
or anything like it anywhere in his very short and on point response.
His entire response is at the top of this email, see for yourself.

By the way, no one has still not really tackled the question of
whether there should be better undo. People are trying to avoid that
subject.

Well, since you are the one who started this thread, and since you
failed to define even one single actual problem, with specificity, how
exactly do you suggest anyone 'tackle the question'?

I suggest they tackled it the only way they could - by pointing out the
total lack of content beyond whining and ranting in your post.

Maybe you should start over, and post again, outlining your specific
problem, and providing a suggestion for how you think it should work.

Oh - and doing so with a reasonably respectful tone would go a long way
to getting helpful answers. As it is now, you are getting exactly what
you asked for.

People are not giving any reasons for why it shouldn't be there.

Why WHAT shouldn't be there?

People are questioning and criticising the motives for wanting it.

No, they are questioning your apparent claim that you said anything of
substance.

Or questioning whether I really need it (which is that thing Linux
people often do).

Since you have not stated what 'it' is, it is unsurprising that no one,
in fact has questioned whether or not you need it, they have questioned
your ability to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Or, as the last resort, being in disagreement with the path I have
chosen to voice my concerns,

Not the path - the method.

#22

Tanstaafl wrote

#23

B.S. Wrote:

for acts they have committed, or didn't commit, such as false advertising, which this product is doing,

That really depends upon the legal jurisdiction one is in.

I'm not about to do a round-up of which legal jurisdictions would rule
which way, but the legal situation is not nearly as clear cut as you
seem to think it is.

However, in as much as you use American English, the odds are that you
think you can file the lawsuit in the United States. Ignoring
jurisdictional issues,
the odds are that the statements you object to, fall squarely under the
"advertising puffery" exception. Furthermore, with a few clearly defined
exceptions,
courts in the Untied States tend to treat "No Warranty" as meaning
"everything you were told was a bunch of bullshit,
and you are an idiot to think any of it was even remotely plausibly
accurate."

I've seen US courts throw noise complaints out, because there was a
single paragraph in the sheaf of papers signed at the time of purchase,
that stated: "This property
is in Noise Zone 3." That county ordinances required a specific sheet of
paper, with specific details to be signed off on, was deemed irrelevant,
because the paragraph
carried the clear, legal message, as defined by state law. That the
purchaser didn't know what "Noise Zone 3" meant, was simply a lack of
due diligence on the part
of the purchaser. ("Noise Zone 3" means that you are in the direct
flight path of extremely noisy, slow moving warplanes flying very close
to the ground, at all
hours of the day and night.)

until others who "do have the skills" see fit to spend their valuable

time on issues that they confirm at their sole discretion,

Part of "active involvement" is either writing the code, or persuading
somebody to write the code, to fix the specific issues that one is having.

A Bishop in the united states, once attended his own Christmas sermon dressed up as a beggar.

FYI, that never happened. It was an illustration told by a cleric, as
part of a sermon on showing love to all.

This person says "feel free to report a bug" after saying that no one is going to listen to it anyway.

I sympathize with the non-response that filing a bug that gets ignored,
or closed as "Wont Fix" generates. Nonetheless, there are individuals and
organizations that go through those bug reports, looking for things that
can be "easily fixed/implemented". Occasionally, they even tackle the
"hard to implement"
RFEs.

The question of whether something /should/ work in a certain way, is apparently not important.

Something people have a lot of trouble understanding, is that features
that work according to the specifications provided when implemented,
are features that work correctly. That what they do doesn't correlate
with how the rest of the world views things, is irrelevant.

That is when users can ask for a feature enhancement. Depending upon how
great a divergence from reality the original specification was,
the feature enhancement might be worked upon, or it might be ignored.

Anyway, if you think the way LibreOffice handles "Undo/Redo" is wrong,
you've a lot to learn about the deliberate errors LibreOffice spits out,
as if the answer is correct, when it is mathematically wrong.
(LibO won't fix those bugs, because users that don't know the difference
between naught and aught think that the provided answer is correct,
despite umpteen mathematical proofs from around the world proving
otherwise.(This is called accepting the delusions of users, by letting
them do as Adam Savage does: "I reject your reality, and substitute my
own." ))

#24

the OP's email is based in Holland for what it's worth.

useful post nonetheless.

f.