Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Frank Esposito Frank Esposito
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

Will this ever happen with Libre Office?

Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
Docs<http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-microsoft-office-with-google-docs/>


just thoughts....


-fe

<http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-microsoft-office-with-google-docs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

T. J. Brumfield T. J. Brumfield
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

There are already OOo plugins that integrate OOo with Google Docs. They've
been around for years.

-- T. J.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Frank Esposito <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Will this ever happen with Libre Office?
>
> Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
> Docs<
> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-microsoft-office-with-google-docs/
> >
>
>
> just thoughts....
>
>
> -fe
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

yorick yorick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

In reply to this post by Frank Esposito
On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:29:01 Frank Esposito wrote:

> Will this ever happen with Libre Office?
>
> Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
> Docs<http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-mic
> rosoft-office-with-google-docs/>
>
>
> just thoughts....
>
>
> -fe

What it should read is:  Google helps MSOffice play catch up a little on OOo.  
OOo/LibreO/Go-ooo communities ask: "What took you so long".

I've had this functionality for quite some time.  
So therefore, the second question is "how did you not know this?"
 And the third question: "How do we let the world know?"

Cheers
GL

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Benjamin Horst Benjamin Horst
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

In reply to this post by T. J. Brumfield

On Nov 22, 2010, at 12:31 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Frank Esposito <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Will this ever happen with Libre Office?
>>
>> Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
>> Docs<
>> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-microsoft-office-with-google-docs/

Here's a link to the extension:
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/ooo2gd

-Ben

Benjamin Horst
[hidden email]
646-464-2314 (Eastern)
www.solidoffice.com


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

In reply to this post by yorick
Le 2010-11-22 14:02, Graham Lauder a écrit :

> On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:29:01 Frank Esposito wrote:
>> Will this ever happen with Libre Office?
>>
>> Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
>> Docs<http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-mic
>> rosoft-office-with-google-docs/>
>>
>>
>> just thoughts....
>>
>>
>> -fe
>
> What it should read is:  Google helps MSOffice play catch up a little on OOo.
> OOo/LibreO/Go-ooo communities ask: "What took you so long".
>
> I've had this functionality for quite some time.
> So therefore, the second question is "how did you not know this?"
>   And the third question: "How do we let the world know?"
>
> Cheers
> GL
>

Someone could blog on this and then point it out. You could also add a
comment to the article. There is still no mention of LibreOffice or OOo
on the comments sections.

Seing this on a LibreOffice blog would be cool, then we could advertise
the blog on something like http://www.LinuxToday.com. They average 1
million hits a day.

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

T. J. Brumfield T. J. Brumfield
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Marc Paré <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 2010-11-22 14:02, Graham Lauder a écrit :
>
> On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:29:01 Frank Esposito wrote:
>>
>>> Will this ever happen with Libre Office?
>>>
>>> Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
>>> Docs<
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-mic
>>> rosoft-office-with-google-docs/>
>>>
>>>
>>> just thoughts....
>>>
>>>
>>> -fe
>>>
>>
>> What it should read is:  Google helps MSOffice play catch up a little on
>> OOo.
>> OOo/LibreO/Go-ooo communities ask: "What took you so long".
>>
>> I've had this functionality for quite some time.
>> So therefore, the second question is "how did you not know this?"
>>  And the third question: "How do we let the world know?"
>>
>> Cheers
>> GL
>>
>>
> Someone could blog on this and then point it out. You could also add a
> comment to the article. There is still no mention of LibreOffice or OOo on
> the comments sections.
>
> Seing this on a LibreOffice blog would be cool, then we could advertise the
> blog on something like http://www.LinuxToday.com<http://www.linuxtoday.com/>.
> They average 1 million hits a day.
>
> Marc


Some of the most popular extensions should be reevaluated as core features
as opposed to extensions that ship seperately. If this was a baked in
feature, more people might be exposed to it.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

mirek2 mirek2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

Hi everyone,

2010/11/22 T. J. Brumfield <[hidden email]>

> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Marc Paré <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Le 2010-11-22 14:02, Graham Lauder a écrit :
> >
> > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:29:01 Frank Esposito wrote:
> >>
> >>> Will this ever happen with Libre Office?
> >>>
> >>> Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
> >>> Docs<
> >>> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-mic
> >>> rosoft-office-with-google-docs/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> just thoughts....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -fe
> >>>
> >>
> >> What it should read is:  Google helps MSOffice play catch up a little on
> >> OOo.
> >> OOo/LibreO/Go-ooo communities ask: "What took you so long".
> >>
> >> I've had this functionality for quite some time.
> >> So therefore, the second question is "how did you not know this?"
> >>  And the third question: "How do we let the world know?"
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> GL
> >>
> >>
> > Someone could blog on this and then point it out. You could also add a
> > comment to the article. There is still no mention of LibreOffice or OOo
> on
> > the comments sections.
> >
> > Seing this on a LibreOffice blog would be cool, then we could advertise
> the
> > blog on something like http://www.LinuxToday.com<
> http://www.linuxtoday.com/>.
> > They average 1 million hits a day.
> >
> > Marc
>
>
> Some of the most popular extensions should be reevaluated as core features
> as opposed to extensions that ship seperately. If this was a baked in
> feature, more people might be exposed to it.
>

As I see it, the problem here is that cool, useful extensions aren't being
really exposed to most OOo/LibO users. We should definitely expose these
extensions more: advertise them on the LibO website, maybe redesign the
Extension website and manager to be more friendly and showcase the most
popular extensions.

There are a lot of really great extensions, way more than we could possibly
hope to package with LibreOffice. If people aren't hearing about them, then
we need to make these extensions discoverable. (Personally, when I started
using OOo, it took me a while to find where I could get the language packs I
needed.)

P. S. I'm not against including extensions with LibreOffice, but these
extensions would definitely need to be removable.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Frank Esposito Frank Esposito
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

>
> As I see it, the problem here is that cool, useful extensions aren't being
> really exposed to most OOo/LibO users.
>


if they are really cool and useful (as this one is that was just pointed
out) then they should become standard features of part of an add-on pack.

imho...

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Wheatbix Wheatbix
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

In reply to this post by mirek2
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Mirek M. <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As I see it, the problem here is that cool, useful extensions aren't being
> really exposed to most OOo/LibO users. We should definitely expose these
> extensions more: advertise them on the LibO website, maybe redesign the
> Extension website and manager to be more friendly and showcase the most
> popular extensions.

Mirek,
That is exactly what the LibreOffice Drupal website development team
is going to achieve.
The OOo extensions site is quite difficult to navigate sometimes which
is one aspect we are hoping to address.
If you would like to make suggestions as to what functionality a new
extensions directory needs to have, please let me know.

Michael Wheatland

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

In reply to this post by Frank Esposito
Le 2010-11-22 18:07, Frank Esposito a écrit :

>>
>> As I see it, the problem here is that cool, useful extensions aren't being
>> really exposed to most OOo/LibO users.
>>
>
>
> if they are really cool and useful (as this one is that was just pointed
> out) then they should become standard features of part of an add-on pack.
>
> imho...
>

I am also another who is of the opinion that the extensions should not
be included and all extensions should be removable as well. We have had
short talks on the download size of the distro as well as having some
extensions added without any option of removing them. IMO, the user
should always be left in control of the extensions. If they are so
necessary, then they should be coded in and not be called extensions.

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Rainer Bielefeld Rainer Bielefeld
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

Marc Paré schrieb:

> [...] IMO, the user
> should always be left in control of the extensions. If they are so
> necessary, then they should be coded in and not be called extensions.

+1

I have a non removable Zulu hyphenation dictionary from 2008, but no Help.

Rainer

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Nathan Nathan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

On 11/23/2010 05:37 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:

> Marc Paré schrieb:
>
>> [...] IMO, the user
>> should always be left in control of the extensions. If they are so
>> necessary, then they should be coded in and not be called extensions.
>
> +1
>
> I have a non removable Zulu hyphenation dictionary from 2008, but no Help.
>
> Rainer
>
This isnt practical with the user base we service. Each user has
different expectations and needs from LibO, there for each user may need
different plugins, extensions, templates, etc etc. This is giving the
user true control and choice. With that said, the popularity of plugins
in itself(automatic installation, removal, and updating) will be
beneficial to LibO in the general scheme of things.

--
Thanks for your time,
Nathan Heafner

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

Le 2010-11-23 12:33, Nathan a écrit :

> On 11/23/2010 05:37 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
>> Marc Paré schrieb:
>>
>>> [...] IMO, the user
>>> should always be left in control of the extensions. If they are so
>>> necessary, then they should be coded in and not be called extensions.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I have a non removable Zulu hyphenation dictionary from 2008, but no
>> Help.
>>
>> Rainer
>>
> This isnt practical with the user base we service. Each user has
> different expectations and needs from LibO, there for each user may need
> different plugins, extensions, templates, etc etc. This is giving the
> user true control and choice. With that said, the popularity of plugins
> in itself(automatic installation, removal, and updating) will be
> beneficial to LibO in the general scheme of things.
>
Agreed.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Harold Fuchs Harold Fuchs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?


"Marc Paré" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:ich2tj$ol7$[hidden email]...

>Le 2010-11-23 12:33, Nathan a écrit :
>> On 11/23/2010 05:37 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
>>> Marc Paré schrieb:
>>>
>>>> [...] IMO, the user
>>>> should always be left in control of the extensions. If they are so
>>>> necessary, then they should be coded in and not be called extensions.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I have a non removable Zulu hyphenation dictionary from 2008, but no
>>> Help.
>>>
>>> Rainer
>>>
>> This isnt practical with the user base we service. Each user has
>> different expectations and needs from LibO, there for each user may need
>> different plugins, extensions, templates, etc etc. This is giving the
>> user true control and choice. With that said, the popularity of plugins
>> in itself(automatic installation, removal, and updating) will be
>> beneficial to LibO in the general scheme of things.
>>
>Agreed.
>

But then there needs to be
- a *proper* management system so that one's extensions are not blown away
by new versions
- a *proper* scheme for notifying a user when a new [sub-[sub-]... version
of LO invalidates an extension
- a scheme whereby a user can easily remove *any* extension, even those that
came *in the box" with LO
- a scheme whereby a user can easily re-install *any* extension that came
*in the box* with LO and was removed by the above scheme.
- a *proper* scheme whereby users can request notification of upgrades to
*individual* extensions

My main "relationship" with extensions has come from using Firefox. Yes,
extensions are great but it is nevertheless extremely frustrating when an
upgrade to FF comes along that invalidates an extension one has been relying
on for quite a while. LO really must try to avoid this if it is to rely on
extensions in the future.

The same points apply to templates, plugins etc.

--
Harold Fuchs
London, England



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

Le 2010-11-23 14:44, Harold Fuchs a écrit :

>
> "Marc Paré" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
> news:ich2tj$ol7$[hidden email]...
>> Le 2010-11-23 12:33, Nathan a écrit :
>>> On 11/23/2010 05:37 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
>>>> Marc Paré schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> [...] IMO, the user
>>>>> should always be left in control of the extensions. If they are so
>>>>> necessary, then they should be coded in and not be called extensions.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I have a non removable Zulu hyphenation dictionary from 2008, but no
>>>> Help.
>>>>
>>>> Rainer
>>>>
>>> This isnt practical with the user base we service. Each user has
>>> different expectations and needs from LibO, there for each user may need
>>> different plugins, extensions, templates, etc etc. This is giving the
>>> user true control and choice. With that said, the popularity of plugins
>>> in itself(automatic installation, removal, and updating) will be
>>> beneficial to LibO in the general scheme of things.
>>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>
> But then there needs to be
> - a *proper* management system so that one's extensions are not blown
> away by new versions
> - a *proper* scheme for notifying a user when a new [sub-[sub-]...
> version of LO invalidates an extension
> - a scheme whereby a user can easily remove *any* extension, even those
> that came *in the box" with LO
> - a scheme whereby a user can easily re-install *any* extension that
> came *in the box* with LO and was removed by the above scheme.
> - a *proper* scheme whereby users can request notification of upgrades
> to *individual* extensions
>
> My main "relationship" with extensions has come from using Firefox. Yes,
> extensions are great but it is nevertheless extremely frustrating when
> an upgrade to FF comes along that invalidates an extension one has been
> relying on for quite a while. LO really must try to avoid this if it is
> to rely on extensions in the future.
>
> The same points apply to templates, plugins etc.
>

Agreed on this as well. We are in the process of re-building the distro.
Now is the time to start fine tuning the process of all of these
external pieces by which they function. It is important to document
clearly the problems and suggest a remedy and someone will step up to
the plate and help fix it. We presently have approximately 90 devs
(according to a blog somewhere) working on the distro, so once the first
official version if out and the pressure is off the devs, they will have
a lot to pick from as well as to prioritize.

It would be nice if someone on this thread assembled all of the
documentation on one post here once the discussions has concluded. If
the subject to the thread does not fit, feel free to move it to a
subject line that best suits the discussion. These discussions will
surely get lost as the subject line does not even discuss extensions.
IMO if you are trying to make a credible statement, I would create a new
thread with a more descriptive subject line and continue the discussion
there.

Just keep fine tuning  suggestions and someone will help present it to
the right people.

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Nathan Nathan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

On 11/23/2010 02:59 PM, Marc Paré wrote:

> Le 2010-11-23 14:44, Harold Fuchs a écrit :
>>
>> "Marc Paré" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
>> news:ich2tj$ol7$[hidden email]...
>>> Le 2010-11-23 12:33, Nathan a écrit :
>>>> On 11/23/2010 05:37 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
>>>>> Marc Paré schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [...] IMO, the user
>>>>>> should always be left in control of the extensions. If they are so
>>>>>> necessary, then they should be coded in and not be called extensions.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a non removable Zulu hyphenation dictionary from 2008, but no
>>>>> Help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rainer
>>>>>
>>>> This isnt practical with the user base we service. Each user has
>>>> different expectations and needs from LibO, there for each user may
>>>> need
>>>> different plugins, extensions, templates, etc etc. This is giving the
>>>> user true control and choice. With that said, the popularity of plugins
>>>> in itself(automatic installation, removal, and updating) will be
>>>> beneficial to LibO in the general scheme of things.
>>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>
>> But then there needs to be
>> - a *proper* management system so that one's extensions are not blown
>> away by new versions
>> - a *proper* scheme for notifying a user when a new [sub-[sub-]...
>> version of LO invalidates an extension
>> - a scheme whereby a user can easily remove *any* extension, even those
>> that came *in the box" with LO
>> - a scheme whereby a user can easily re-install *any* extension that
>> came *in the box* with LO and was removed by the above scheme.
>> - a *proper* scheme whereby users can request notification of upgrades
>> to *individual* extensions
>>
>> My main "relationship" with extensions has come from using Firefox. Yes,
>> extensions are great but it is nevertheless extremely frustrating when
>> an upgrade to FF comes along that invalidates an extension one has been
>> relying on for quite a while. LO really must try to avoid this if it is
>> to rely on extensions in the future.
>>
>> The same points apply to templates, plugins etc.
>>
>
> Agreed on this as well. We are in the process of re-building the distro.
> Now is the time to start fine tuning the process of all of these
> external pieces by which they function. It is important to document
> clearly the problems and suggest a remedy and someone will step up to
> the plate and help fix it. We presently have approximately 90 devs
> (according to a blog somewhere) working on the distro, so once the first
> official version if out and the pressure is off the devs, they will have
> a lot to pick from as well as to prioritize.
>
> It would be nice if someone on this thread assembled all of the
> documentation on one post here once the discussions has concluded. If
> the subject to the thread does not fit, feel free to move it to a
> subject line that best suits the discussion. These discussions will
> surely get lost as the subject line does not even discuss extensions.
> IMO if you are trying to make a credible statement, I would create a new
> thread with a more descriptive subject line and continue the discussion
> there.
>
> Just keep fine tuning suggestions and someone will help present it to
> the right people.
>
> Marc
>
>
I would like to chime in.  for the record I will use the term Extensions
vaguely  but am ultimately referring to plugins/add-ons/extensions/ etc
etc.

I think, in the world of extensions there are some issues present in
very popular open source apps That LibO could attempt to solve to create
a seamless user experience. The example listed above was excellent
regarding updating the main app and having extensions that are non
compatible with newer versions. Heres what I have in mind.

1. How extensions are chosen for Core inclusion. (I think this should be
done by user statics, the most used extensions should get consideration
for core inclusion)

2. Balancing the core app with the appropriate number of extensions.
Some projects leave everything to extensions, leaving the user to
install 10 - 20 at a time making a lot of work.

3. Extension licensing, very complex.

4. Core developers contributing to extensions.

5. Plugin repo clean up. I think each time a new version of Lib0 is
released, when extensions are deemed to be unusable, the developer can
either update the extension or have it removed from the listing, moving
it to a archived listing if you will.

After typing this up, I've found myself pondering the idea of extensions
in an office Suite. Mostly, can an office suite be extended? How? If any
of the current features were removed for a fresh install to be offered
as an extension, would this create a bad user experience? If we keep all
current features in core, what else would there be to extend?

--
Thanks for your time,
Nathan Heafner

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Phil Hibbs Phil Hibbs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

A word of warning when using Google Docs in combination with ODF -
Google usually goes with Excel behaviour rather than OOo/LO behaviour.
For instance, they've always used the comma for parameter separation
in formulae rather than semicolon (although it exports and imports ODF
ok), and their random numbers re-randomize every time anything
changes, whereas OOo/LO only re-randomize a cell when it changes.
There is a more serious problem, that Google Docs will export a
non-working ODF spreadsheet if you use an entire column range, e.g.
=SUM(A:A), which OOo/LO do not support.

Phil Hibbs.
--
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***