![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Hi 
Try reading the instructions
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Hopefully that might help you unsubscribe. The lists have been unusually busy
over the last couple of weeks but it might calm down a bit.
Regards from
Tom
It might help, actually, if instead of requiring the hopeful escapee to
send off an email in order to learn how to send off a second emall, the
footer merely tell the fellow what email he must send in order to leave.
That is what is done in most lists, it isn't clear why it can't be done.
here as well. We don't need to punish people for wanting to unsubscribe.
It might be even better to say "click here to unsubscribe". Although the
address is currently given as a link, the link is very easy to overlook,
especially that (as has been pointed out) many users of this list are
not technical people, and this may be their first experience with lists
and leaving them.
Inviting people to email the help system if they have a problem is very
nice, but it's a separate issue, and bundling the unsubscribe method
into it only complicates matters for unsubscribing, which is always the
chief reason for involving the administrative function in the first
place.
There are half a dozen different ways an individual can be subscribed to
this list. Consequently, how to unsubscribe depends upon how the
individual originally subscribed.
I guess each way could be put in the footer, but that would make for a
footer that was at least twenty lines long, and probably closer to thirty.
jonathon
- --
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.
If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.
                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
    English - detected
    English
    English
And you'd still have [people asking how to unsubscribe, because they
don't udnerstand why there are instructions for so
> the footer merely tell the fellow what email he must send in order
> to leave.There are half a dozen different ways an individual can be subscribed
to this list. Consequently, how to unsubscribe depends upon how the
individual originally subscribed.
Actually, according to the help file that we are dragging the poor
fellow through, there are two:
He can be getting messages one by each, or
He can be getting a digest.
Those are the choices he is being offered to unsubscribe, so if there
are four others, they are being ignored anyway.
I guess each way could be put in the footer, but that would make for
a footer that was at least twenty lines long, and probably closer to
thirty.
Not twenty, two. It should not be a lot of trouble for a dedicated
operative to devise a way to do that.
Or, alternatively, we could continue the current method, which (as far
as I have seen from the many lists to which I subscribe now or have
subscribed in the past, is unique, and which produces entirely too many
requests to the list membership to "unsubscribe me". There is nothing
special about this list that requires a more clumsy unsubscribe method
than any othe list on the planet.
Hello,
My understanding is that the .odb file format is XML-based (?), so I wondered if there was a way to do a daily dump of a remote PostreSQL database to a .sql file (DDL and DML included), and then covert / export / iteratively read the SQL into an offline LibreOffice database (as XML?)?
Thanks,
Derrick
Base is primarily a translator between various backends and LibreOffice.
It does however use HyperSQL [1, 2] to create stand alone databases.
[1] http://hsqldb.org/
[2] http://hsqldb.org/web/hsqlUsing.html
This is a relational database engine written in Java.
The user guide can be found here...
http://hsqldb.org/doc/2.0/guide/index.html
HyperSQL: Compatibility With Other RDBMS...
http://hsqldb.org/doc/2.0/guide/deployment-chapt.html#N14266
I believe the XML ODB file your are alluding to contains the information on views, forms, reports and connections -- *not data*.
Apparently HyperSQL has a transfer tool that can be used to dump and restore data from various backends.
http://hsqldb.org/doc/guide/apg.html#N12D9E
I suggest you visit their forum on help regarding use of this tool.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674
Perhaps drifting off thread a little. I have a DBF database which dates
back many years - in fact to Lotus Works in MS DOS days. It works well
via LO Base, once one has worked out how to do it, which is far from
obvious. I have often wondered whether it is worth converting this to a
native LO database, ie on the lines of your mentioned HyperSQL. I guess
it is not, and in fact I would guess that most users only use Base as
an interface to other database formats.
The 'Help' in LO, practically identical to that in OOo, is far from
helpful and is pretty short of practical guidance. Every time I look at
it it leaves me confused. Maybe an 'idiots guide' to using Base in real
life situations, as part of the installation, is long over due. It
would reduce all these sorts of threads.
Dave
Base is primarily a translator between various backends and LibreOffice.
It does however use HyperSQL [1, 2] to create stand alone databases. [1]
http://hsqldb.org/ [2] http://hsqldb.org/web/hsqlUsing.htmlThis is a relational database engine written in Java.
Hi
+1
The Documentation Team are working on a Base Guide but it's very difficult. Any
help would be appreciated. The type of guide being worked on right now is to
fit on this page
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation
along with the guides for the other apps. At the very bottom of the page is a
good place to add links to other useful stuff. Feel free to add links or/and
join the docs team to perhaps get even more involved.
Regards from
Tom
Hi
  I used many years ago access data base and I remember that you can
export de data base to spreadsheet (excel). Then you would do:
1) Open Base program and open directly the excel spreadsheet and save as
data Base.
or
2) Open the excel spreadsheet with Calc, save as .ods and then open Base
and import the spreasheet .ods.
  Both methods permit change your original data base to native LO Data
Base.
Regards,
Jorge RodrÃguez
Am 15.08.2011 10:33, Dave Sergeant wrote:
Perhaps drifting off thread a little. I have a DBF database which dates
back many years - in fact to Lotus Works in MS DOS days. It works well
via LO Base, once one has worked out how to do it, which is far from
obvious. I have often wondered whether it is worth converting this to a
native LO database, ie on the lines of your mentioned HyperSQL. I guess
it is not, and in fact I would guess that most users only use Base as
an interface to other database formats.
Do yourself a favour, and abstain from the "native" embedded HSQLDB.
It has a bad reputation to destroy all user data. They should never have implemented a native database in this way.
In fact it behaves like an extension. Every time you "open the database document" the HSQLDB is extracted to the temporary directory and then it is connected just like an external database for one allmighty user.
Every time you "close the database document" the whole thing gets repackaged. With growing size the packaging time becomes longer and longer. Sometimes an input form may crash, sometimes any other office component may hickup. If this happens during the packaging process, your entire database will be lost.
Embedded HSQLDB is insecure, unsafe, slow and not connectable with anything but this office suite. It is a caricature of a database, still good enough for some drafts and unproductive demos in a single file.
I have very good experience with HSQLDB and with H2 as a stand-alone databases, others use the MySQL or PostgreSQL they are familiar with.
Hello Stan,
It might help, actually, if instead of requiring the hopeful escapee
to send off an email in order to learn how to send off a second emall,
You'd think, wouldn't you. Trouble is, the perpetrators of such unsub
faux pas make the gaff because they can't be arsed to read the footer
at all. As a result, for them, the content is irrelevant.
That is exactly why they should not be confronted with this superfluous
step, since there is not reason not to simplify the procedure. You would
still have errors, but they would be far fewer. Why is that wrong?
The people who are experiencing the problem (or, as you might put it,
are inflicting the problem on us) are (as has been pointed out) largely
office type people, who may be having their first exposure to lists and
how to use them. If you want to just solve the problem of getting them
unsubscribed, you will have to make it as obvious as possible, which is
why all other lists, as far as I can remember, have the unsubscribe
instruction up front, not hidden behind an instruction to get the
instruction (one might caall that "the obstruction").
If you prefer to ignore their naivete, and to continue to confront them
with this unnecessary barrier, you can have the joy of feeling superior
to them (which is what you are doing), with all the pleasant buzz that
this may give you, and have a laugh each and every time there is one of
these plaints on the list -- and the annoyance will continue.
I do not know who is responsible administration of the list, but my hope
is that he will wake up one morning, and figure out what the less
juvenile choice should be.
Hi
We don't really get a LOT of problems. Perhaps 2 or 3 people in a month? We
all notice and their posts are glaringly obvious but usually it's very easy to
fix. One of us just copies&pastes the guide address from the new footer into
the main part of the message.
Note that the footer did change a couple of weeks ago. It's not perfect but it
is a bit better imo. I still largely agree with Stan's statement.
Regards from
Tom
Why is it necessary for one of us to hand-massage individual cases? Does
it satisfy a hidden social need to do so?
Blogs to which I subscribe generally have a link at the bottom of each
message saying "To unsubscribe, click _here_". No muss, no fuss. Why is
that inadequate?
In the case of a mailing list, there are two alternatives of
subscribtion, message by message, or the digest. Suppose that the link
would open a browser to a page on an LO site, that asks the simple
question "Message by message, or digest". The fellow can check the right
box, the system sends him the usual confirmation message, and it's over.
If , instead of two possibilities, there are four or even thirty (as a
user from some other galaxy noted), then there can be four or thirty
checkboxes on the web page.
I don't see why this is even an issue to be debated.
If there has been a change of the instruction recently, I have not
detected it. Since the method is as it was, any change can only have
been trivial/
Hello Stan,
That is exactly why they should not be confronted with this
superfluous step, since there is not reason not to simplify the
procedure. You would still have errors, but they would be far fewer.
Why is that wrong?
It isn't but please re-read what I wrote, as you seem to have
misunderstood. These people don't as a rule, read the footer.
Therefore changing the content won't be of any use. It could read
"click here to be given $1,000,000 no strings attached" and they *still*
wouldn't read it.
The people who are experiencing the problem (or, as you might put it,
are inflicting the problem on us) are (as has been pointed out)
largely office type people, who may be having their first exposure to
lists and how to use them. If you want to just solve the problem of
Except that, in most instances, the same people commit the same
'mistake' on multiple lists. It's laziness and/or stupidity.
possible, which is why all other lists, as far as I can remember, have
the unsubscribe instruction up front, not hidden behind an instruction
And people /still/ send unsub messages to the list. I see it on the
lists I administer. The instructions are in *every* message sent to the
list, plus the one sent when anybody initially subscribes. Few people
read those, never mind keep them.
If you prefer to ignore their naivete, and to continue to confront
them with this unnecessary barrier, you can have the joy of feeling
superior to them (which is what you are doing), with all the pleasant
Feel superior? Nope. Contempt is nearer the mark. I don't suffer fools
gladly. Please don't presume to tell me how I feel.
buzz that this may give you, and have a laugh each and every time
there is one of these plaints on the list -- and the annoyance will
continue.
It'll continue whatever gets put in the footer.
Hello Stan,
Why is it necessary for one of us to hand-massage individual cases?
Because there's a percentage of people that expect everything to be done
for them. They're called lazy people.
Does it satisfy a hidden social need to do so?
Why are you accusing those that do assist of having an ulterior motive?
Hi
I don't feel contempt or superior or anything. If a person has a problem i just
try to help if i can. A quick copy&paste is no hassle.
At a coffee shop we kept making a certain warning sign larger and larger.
Changed the font to red. Tried exclamation marks, road-side no-entry signs.
Nothing seemed to work, people would walk right by. So we switched to a tiny
sign with "Top Secret" printed at the top. Suddenly everyone started taking
notice.
Regards from
Tom
Hello Stan,
> Why is it necessary for one of us to hand-massage individual cases?
Because there's a percentage of people that expect everything to be
done for them. They're called lazy people.
Given that there are lazy people, and also even many more people who
simply don't know the drill and don't know exactly what to scrutinize
to make sure that they're not missing any bets, the rational way for the
group to cope with such evidence of the human condition would be to made
every effort ONCE to minimize the frequency with which it will be
bothered by the need for individual explanations.
An irrational response might be to dismiss them all as just lazy people
who need to be taught a lesson, even though teaching this lesson several
times a week also bothers to a slight degree each and every reader of
the list, not to mention the Good Samaritans who send out these
messages two or three times a week. The aggregate bother over, say, a
year is not at all trivial, and it is all sooo unnecessary,
> Does it satisfy a hidden social need to do so?
Why are you accusing those that do assist of having an ulterior
motive?
If you will read that sentence again, you may notice that it is not an
accusation, but one in a series of hypothericals, framed as questions,
meant to display the absence of any logical explanation for the unusual
way unsubscription is being handled. As you have perceived it as an
acccusation, it seems to have struck a nerve. For the record however, I
don't care how you get your jollies; What you do with your surplus time
is certainly your own business.
I am sure I've said everything I have to say on this subject, several
times. I don't have any interest in defending my position further. It's
been educational, which is something, and it's shown me an especially
comical human foible that I must somehow have missed earlier.
As you were.
Hi
Your position is a good one and doesn't need defending. If we all agreed about
everything all the time it would be very dull. Lets hope we never get there!
Usually we work towards a win-win so that everyone is happy but in this case we
have been forced into a compromise which no-one has won and some points of view
have lost out more than others. The fact is (imo) that you are right and other
people (incl me) are trying to defend a less-than-perfect system.
There is a Nabble thread about this and if you have a good idea of how to
implement a better answer then it would be great to add to that thread. That
seems to be the blocker at the moment, the implementation is not easy. Other
mailing lists have better answers but the mailing-list system we are using is
different.
Regards from
Tom
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:56:39 +0300, Stan Goodman
<stan.goodman@hashkedim.com> wrote Re Re: [libreoffice-users]
unsubscribe:
Given that there are lazy people, and also even many more people who
simply don't know the drill and don't know exactly what to scrutinize
to make sure that they're not missing any bets, the rational way for the
group to cope with such evidence of the human condition would be to made
every effort ONCE to minimize the frequency with which it will be
bothered by the need for individual explanations.
Well put.