Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Good Article for LibreOffice

Hi :)
I guess i am more thinking about formats that LO currently supports that are becoming archaic or 
that might have already become archaic but still being supported anyway.  If some of those could be 
stripped out into being just Extensions then wouldn't it make things a bit more streamlined?  I 
agree about import filters only.  
Regards from
Tom :)  





> ________________________________
> From: Jay Lozier <jslozier@gmail.com>
> To: Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk> 
> Cc: "users@global.libreoffice.org" <users@global.libreoffice.org> 
> Sent: Monday, 26 November 2012, 13:59
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Good Article for LibreOffice
>
>
> On 11/26/2012 04:39 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>
> Hi :)
> > Arachaic formats (ie old formats that are almost never used
        nowadays but may have been popular once) might be something that
        Extensions could be used to deal with.  We might not want legacy
        code retained in the main code to read ancient formats that
        'no-one' uses anymore but it might be nice to be able to add-on
        an Extension to read old love letters and such.  
> > Also formats that kept the same name but went through many
        changes.  So that one Extension might help people read Doc
        formats prior to the 1997 version and another reads the 97 one. 
        That might be something to help our poor devs deal with the 3
        different DocX formats now in use.  One to read DocXs from MSO
        2007, another for the 2010 and the 3rd for MSO 365.  At the
        moment it would probably be best to have the 2010 one by default
        but if that could easily be swapped-out and replaced by the 365
        one in a couple of years then we might retain a way of being
        able to read all of them.  
> > I think such Extensions would need to be released on OpenSource
        licenses either BSD type licenses that need to attribute
        previous artists/authors/coders or GPL type ones that don't
        acknowledge previous coders.  Then when the Extensions become
        outdated it might still be possible for people to update them so
        they work in whichever future version of LO we are on by that
        time.  
> > Regards from
> > Tom :)  
IMHO the real problem with archaic formats is the lack of available documentation forcing one to 
reverse engineer the format. I suspect this sounds much easier that it really is; particularly if 
you do not have a clue about the final text. Some of the very ancient formats may be accessible 
because they did not include any graphics/art/images in the file. They were all text with embedded 
codes for bold/italics, etc. For LO we need to make an intelligent cut and say these formats we 
will have the ability to import but others will not be supported. The selection being we already 
have the ability so updating/maintaining the code is required and others are so ancient that we do 
not have the resources to address the conversion. Note most ancient formats would probably only 
need an import filter not an export one.
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Jay Lozier <jslozier@gmail.com>
> > > To: users@global.libreoffice.org 
> > > Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 23:56
> > > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Good Article for LibreOffice
> > >
> > > On 11/25/2012 05:27 PM, Girvin R. Herr wrote:
> > > > Tom Davies wrote:
> > > > > Hi :)
> > > > > It's interesting that there has been almost no
                posts about articles such as this one.
> > > > > https://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/660608-libreoffice-a-continuing-tale-of-foss-success
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > There are some interesting stats that are very
                well presented in there and it's worth using to spread
                the word of how LibreOffice works.
> > > > > For me one of the key things that no article
                seems to mention is that while many hefty companies are
                vanishing seemingly overnight  it seems somewhat
                dangerous to rely on just one.  It would be like not
                making back-ups of critical information!!  If we can
                bear to think of LO and AOO as being similar enough that
                users can migrate from one to the other fairly easily
                and thus as being 2 prioducts supported by 1 community
                then that community is massive.  Taken as being 1
                product it is so robust that even if 1 or 2 companoes
                the size of IBM or Google (or RedHat or SUSE) were to
                simply vanish overnight then there would still be a good
                product out there.  By sticking with MS people are
                risking everything they have by being so heavily
                dependant on just 1 company and that company is losing
                market share to mobile devices.  Perhaps Win8 might help
                them recover the OS battle but it might not.
> > > > > Regards from
> > > > > Tom :) 
> > > > Greetings,
> > > > My primary goal is to reduce, or preferably
                eliminate, risk to my data.  I learned the hard way many
                years ago that depending on M$ and other proprietary
                software suppliers was way too risky.  I then decided to
                switch to Open Source software and take back control of
                my computer.  I have never regretted that decision. Even
                if LO/AOO go away, there are still other applications,
                such as Koffice, that will still allow me to
                read/maintain my documents & data.  And, if it comes
                down to it, I can always unzip my LO/OO files and get
                the data from the file(s) inside.  That allows me to
                sleep at night.
> > > > Girvin Herr
> > > +1
> > > I prefer the FOSS / open formats model better for the
                reasons you noted. 
> > > > From a general user perspective; open formats are
                probably more 
> > > important for long term accessibility. Most long term
                users can remember proprietary formats for software that
                were very popular 15+ years ago that are unreadable by
                any software in current release. To make matters worse
                you may even have files you would like to read in these
                formats. You may find a conversion software that claims
                to accurately convert the obsolete format to a currently
                used format - I can not vouch for anyone's claims.
> > > The problem with any proprietary format is whether
                someone will continue to provide software that can edit
                it in the future or will it eventually become an orphan.
                Amipro and Wordstar come to mind and I am sure others
                can be named.
> > > -- Jay Lozier
> > > jslozier@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
> > > Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> > > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> > > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
> > > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived
                and cannot be deleted
> > >
>
>
> -- 
Jay Lozier jslozier@gmail.com
>
-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted