You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@openoffice.apache.org by Carol-Virgil Arrington <ar...@hotmail.com> on 2012/12/10 23:07:47 UTC
A Tale of Two Office Suites
I may be way out of line here, but I’m sending this post to the user lists for both LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice. I have both programs on my computer and regularly use both. Like many of you out there, I have subscribed to both user lists.
I don’t know the full history behind the Libre/Oracle split, but from what I have read on various forums and lists, there is considerable emotional pain resulting from the split. The result is two different FOSS office suites.
Some have pleaded for the two to combine forces. Others have noted that the competition is good for the end user as it results in more rapid development of improvements to both suites.
I see both sides, but I’d like to point out one thing I have noticed in my own use of the two programs. Some computer programs are what I would call “load and use.” Programs like web browsers and mail clients, etc., require little to no configuration or customization. One can simply do productive use without much thought. I can easily bounce back and forth between Internet Explorer and Firefox, Live Mail and Thunderbird.
Not so with office suites. To get the most out of my office suites, I create and edit templates, page, character and paragraph styles. I have to set the autocorrect functions of each program to my liking to prevent a (c) from turning into a ©. While it’s not essential, I tend to customize my toolbars and have created helpful macros. Effectively using an office suite requires a commitment akin to a marriage.
For this reason, bouncing back and forth between two suites is counterproductive. I find myself importing and exporting settings, styles, and templates between the two programs rather than simply doing my work.
Why do I put up with this inconvenience? Because each program has essential virtues over the other.
For example, if I need to properly hyphenate my US English, I use LibreOffice as (to date), OpenOffice fails to properly hyphenate US English.
But, if I need to create mailing lists, as I just did for Christmas cards, I use OpenOffice as its Avery 5160 template is more properly aligned than that found in LibreOffice.
LibreOffice remembers my hierarchical stylelist setting, whereas OpenOffice does not, but OpenOffice more effectively supports the advanced Graphite features of the Linux Libertine font.
So, depending on my specific needs, I bounce back and forth. I’m sure many would suggest that I help out by reporting bugs. I have done so, but even I get lost keeping track of the bugs of each program that I am most interested in following.
I suspect this situation will only get worse as each program develops features that will be lacking in the other. And, while I’m not a developer, my guess is that both programs are so complex that keeping up with each other will become an increasingly elusive effort. And, the time will come when decisions will be made NOT to implement features found in the other program.
I truly like the motivation generated with competition, and sometimes having multiple programs on my computer to meet specialized needs can be helpful. But, in the world of office suites, where user commitment is essential to effective use, it would be very helpful to us end users if TDF and Apache could somehow overcome their differences and join forces to give us one glorious office suites rather than two almost glorious office suites.
These are just my thoughts.
I’d be curious as to how many others are using both programs because of advantages of each over the other.
Virgil
RE: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by Maurice Howe <ma...@stny.rr.com>.
Hmmm. Now that we have yer key, where's the lock??
Maurice
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Holtzman [mailto:holtzm@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:44 PM
To: users@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:45:00AM +0000, Mike Lish wrote:
> Hi Carol,
>
> You are definitely NOT out of line.
>
> I'm not desk based and use OoO for the basics. I come from a military
> and "hands on" manufacturing environment (now retired) where there
> must be established procedure for every task, as I'm sure is the same
> for an office environment.
That's very true for some environments, especially the military. That,
however is <spit> Microsoft thinking. Choice is *almost* always a good
thing.
Don't be too sure about an office environment. It depends on the size of the
organization and how it's structured.
In short, in *many* situations choice is preferable.
..........snip.........
--
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 02:25:06PM -0800, Girvin R. Herr wrote:
> It is my impression, from more than just this issue, that the AOO
> Linux effort is still a bit immature and needs to settle down a bit
> before I can return to a stable AOO.
OpenOffice is as stable in Linux as in the other supported platforms, so
I've no idea what you're talking about. Impressions are always
subjective, and developers need reproducible bug reports in order to
investigate and fix things :)
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by "Girvin R. Herr" <gi...@sbcglobal.net>.
Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:01:21PM -0800, Girvin R. Herr wrote:
>
>> "Choice" allowed me to continue updating the office suite!
>>
>> I was using OpenOffice 3.3.0 when Apache took over. When Apache
>> released 3.4, I discovered Apache made some, IMHO bad, decisions
>> that broke installation on my older Slackware Linux computer. Those
>> decisions made it very painful for me to upgrade to their 3.4
>> version. The "deal breaker" was the decision to switch glibc
>> versions. Even though the release notes stated that OO 3.4 would
>> work on glibc 2.5 or greater, that was incorrect and in actuality,
>> it required glibc 2.11.
>>
>
> This wasn't a decision, it was a bug, see
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119385
>
> Early testing by the user community would have avoided this bug. There
> is no need to be a developer to contribute to an open source project
> like OpenOffice.
>
Ariel,
Thanks for the update. I tend to gravitate toward processes that work,
so I have not been keeping up with this "bug" since I switched to LO.
The bug report does not seem to definitely state that this "bug" has
been addressed in the current or even future releases. That does not
give me a warm fuzzy feeling to return to AOO. As my time allows, I
will keep trying the new releases until they start working without
intervention. I would hope that the bug report recommendations will be
acted upon and AOO becomes more friendly to older Linux systems.
<snip>
>
> The build environment based in dmake comes from Sun Microsystem times
> (or may be even before that).
>
I wouldn't know about that. I have historically re-packaged the
downloaded binary packages into Slackware installation packages. After
the AOO 3.4 binary would not work, my attempt at building the source,
was to see if a working AOO 3.4 could be built against the libraries I
already have. I have found that if I can do that with any program, the
program will be the most stable. It was worth a try, but, as I said, it
failed. My computer log states that the failure was something to do
with a Python 5 module error (I have Python 2.5.2). There are only a
very few trusted binaries that I allow to run on my system. Normally, I
do build from source. However, the time involved with building a large
program such as AOO is a good driver to use it's binary. Besides, until
AOO 3.4, the binaries always worked well for me.
<snip>
> Try the unofficial tar ball from
> http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1372282-glibc-2.5/#full-archived-sets
> you don't even need to install it.
>
>
> Regards
>
Thanks, but for computer security reasons, I am _very_ reluctant to
install an unofficial version. I would prefer to wait until the
official, trusted, version is released. It is my impression, from more
than just this issue, that the AOO Linux effort is still a bit immature
and needs to settle down a bit before I can return to a stable AOO.
Thanks again.
Girvin Herr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:01:21PM -0800, Girvin R. Herr wrote:
> "Choice" allowed me to continue updating the office suite!
>
> I was using OpenOffice 3.3.0 when Apache took over. When Apache
> released 3.4, I discovered Apache made some, IMHO bad, decisions
> that broke installation on my older Slackware Linux computer. Those
> decisions made it very painful for me to upgrade to their 3.4
> version. The "deal breaker" was the decision to switch glibc
> versions. Even though the release notes stated that OO 3.4 would
> work on glibc 2.5 or greater, that was incorrect and in actuality,
> it required glibc 2.11.
This wasn't a decision, it was a bug, see
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119385
Early testing by the user community would have avoided this bug. There
is no need to be a developer to contribute to an open source project
like OpenOffice.
> My computer is running glibc 2.7. I then
> tried building from source and discovered another Apache decision
> tossed the tried-and-true GNU autotools build environment in favor
> of something called dmake
The build environment based in dmake comes from Sun Microsystem times
(or may be even before that).
> (sounds like yet another PHD project
> looking for a home). I tried dmake, but I still had problems
> building the source.
Try the unofficial tar ball from
http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1372282-glibc-2.5/#full-archived-sets
you don't even need to install it.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by "Girvin R. Herr" <gi...@sbcglobal.net>.
Robert Holtzman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:45:00AM +0000, Mike Lish wrote:
>
>> Hi Carol,
>>
>> You are definitely NOT out of line.
>>
>> I'm not desk based and use OoO for the basics. I come from a military and
>> "hands on" manufacturing environment (now retired) where there must be
>> established procedure for every task, as I'm sure is the same for an office
>> environment.
>>
>
> That's very true for some environments, especially the military. That,
> however is <spit> Microsoft thinking. Choice is *almost* always a good
> thing.
>
> Don't be too sure about an office environment. It depends on the size of
> the organization and how it's structured.
>
> In short, in *many* situations choice is preferable.
>
> ..........snip.........
>
"Choice" allowed me to continue updating the office suite!
I was using OpenOffice 3.3.0 when Apache took over. When Apache
released 3.4, I discovered Apache made some, IMHO bad, decisions that
broke installation on my older Slackware Linux computer. Those
decisions made it very painful for me to upgrade to their 3.4 version.
The "deal breaker" was the decision to switch glibc versions. Even
though the release notes stated that OO 3.4 would work on glibc 2.5 or
greater, that was incorrect and in actuality, it required glibc 2.11.
My computer is running glibc 2.7. I then tried building from source and
discovered another Apache decision tossed the tried-and-true GNU
autotools build environment in favor of something called dmake (sounds
like yet another PHD project looking for a home). I tried dmake, but I
still had problems building the source. I was facing updating my entire
Linux computer or abandoning OO. (See my contribution to thread "
Installing Apache OpenOffice over LibreOffice" dated 5-15-2012.)
That said, when LibreOffice split off, I tried a couple of their
releases with little success. So I continued to use OO 3.3. When I
discovered OO 3.4 was broke, I tried LO 3.5 and discovered TDF did not
make the same "bad" decisions that Apache had made. Deciding to stay
with glibc 2.5+ allowed LO to still run on my older Linux computer. I
found LO very stable, well, at least as stable as OO 3.3 and some bugs I
had with OO 3.3 were fixed in LO 3.5. That was when I switched to LO.
So, having the choice was a good thing for me.
"He, who lives on the cutting edge of technology, gets sliced to bits!"
- Adam Osborne
Girvin Herr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by Robert Holtzman <ho...@cox.net>.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:45:00AM +0000, Mike Lish wrote:
> Hi Carol,
>
> You are definitely NOT out of line.
>
> I'm not desk based and use OoO for the basics. I come from a military and
> "hands on" manufacturing environment (now retired) where there must be
> established procedure for every task, as I'm sure is the same for an office
> environment.
That's very true for some environments, especially the military. That,
however is <spit> Microsoft thinking. Choice is *almost* always a good
thing.
Don't be too sure about an office environment. It depends on the size of
the organization and how it's structured.
In short, in *many* situations choice is preferable.
..........snip.........
--
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by James Knott <ja...@rogers.com>.
Haim (Howard) Roman wrote:
> Has anyone invented a one-sided coin yet?;-)
Well, it's not a coin, but the Möbius strip has only one side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by "Haim (Howard) Roman" <ro...@jct.ac.il>.
Has anyone invented a one-sided coin yet? ;-)
(http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/other+side+of+the+coin.html)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Haim (Howard) Roman
Computer Center, Jerusalem College of Technology
Phone: 052-8-592-599 (6022 from within Machon Lev)
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM, VA <cu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> I love the concept of open source software, but I hate this inevitable
> side effect.
>
>
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by Robert Holtzman <ho...@cox.net>.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 07:40:15AM -0500, VA wrote:
> If there's one think I'm beginning to learn about FOSS, it's that
> forks are an inevitable part of the game. I'm just starting to
> dabble in Linux and there are so many flavors and forks of that
> operating system, it's no wonder that the free OS has never become a
> serious Windows challenger.
On the contrary, FOSS has made a number of inroads in various municipal
situations, to say nothing of entire governments mandating it. Pres
Obama is pushing it for the US.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/22/obama-wants-open-source-it-solutions-for-us/id=1733/
>
> The open source defenders tout this as one of the benefits of open
> source software. Anyone can take the program and improve it for
> their particular needs. I agree, that is a real FOSS benefit. But,
> then, that person gathers a group of people and they send their
> unique version out into the world. Then someone else inserts a new
> killer feature and sends their version out into the world. Add to
> this dynamic the human element of people just not getting along, and
> pretty soon you have scores of versions of the same software. There
> are so many Linux versions out there that software makers no longer
> even try to maintain versions of their programs for all the
> different flavors.
>
> I love the concept of open source software, but I hate this
> inevitable side effect.
There are people who aren't comfortable with many choices. That's not to
denigrate them, that's just a fact of life. Windows users, especially,
are used to having Microsoft dictate their choices. When they make the
leap to open source they get a shock. Those that stay with FOSS learn to
experiment with a few of the choices until they find one they like and
ignore the rest.
--
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by VA <cu...@hotmail.com>.
If there's one think I'm beginning to learn about FOSS, it's that forks are
an inevitable part of the game. I'm just starting to dabble in Linux and
there are so many flavors and forks of that operating system, it's no wonder
that the free OS has never become a serious Windows challenger.
The open source defenders tout this as one of the benefits of open source
software. Anyone can take the program and improve it for their particular
needs. I agree, that is a real FOSS benefit. But, then, that person gathers
a group of people and they send their unique version out into the world.
Then someone else inserts a new killer feature and sends their version out
into the world. Add to this dynamic the human element of people just not
getting along, and pretty soon you have scores of versions of the same
software. There are so many Linux versions out there that software makers no
longer even try to maintain versions of their programs for all the different
flavors.
I love the concept of open source software, but I hate this inevitable side
effect.
Virgil
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Lish
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:45 AM
To: users@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Hi Carol,
You are definitely NOT out of line.
I'm not desk based and use OoO for the basics. I come from a military and
"hands on" manufacturing environment (now retired) where there must be
established procedure for every task, as I'm sure is the same for an office
environment.
I'm also a newby regarding the full potential use of OoO or Libre.
I am impressed with your succinct analysis of effort spent between the two.
Such a waste of time should not be necessary, and could not be tolerated
within any productive environment. Frankly, the reasons behind the split
don't interest me. and I am just as likely to use Libre as Open Office.
What does interest me is, why there isn't a global outcry for a focused
effort to produce one office suite to equal any paid for suite without all
this wasted, counter productive, time and effort needed for configuring it.
Why such a situation is tolerated for so long, when a combined, focused
effort is all it takes.
regards,
Mike Lish
On 10 December 2012 22:07, Carol-Virgil Arrington
<ar...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> I may be way out of line here, but I’m sending this post to the user lists
> for both LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice. I have both programs on my
> computer and regularly use both. Like many of you out there, I have
> subscribed to both user lists.
>
> I don’t know the full history behind the Libre/Oracle split, but from what
> I have read on various forums and lists, there is considerable emotional
> pain resulting from the split. The result is two different FOSS office
> suites.
>
> Some have pleaded for the two to combine forces. Others have noted that
> the competition is good for the end user as it results in more rapid
> development of improvements to both suites.
>
> I see both sides, but I’d like to point out one thing I have noticed in my
> own use of the two programs. Some computer programs are what I would call
> “load and use.” Programs like web browsers and mail clients, etc., require
> little to no configuration or customization. One can simply do productive
> use without much thought. I can easily bounce back and forth between
> Internet Explorer and Firefox, Live Mail and Thunderbird.
>
> Not so with office suites. To get the most out of my office suites, I
> create and edit templates, page, character and paragraph styles. I have to
> set the autocorrect functions of each program to my liking to prevent a
> (c)
> from turning into a ©. While it’s not essential, I tend to customize my
> toolbars and have created helpful macros. Effectively using an office
> suite
> requires a commitment akin to a marriage.
>
> For this reason, bouncing back and forth between two suites is
> counterproductive. I find myself importing and exporting settings, styles,
> and templates between the two programs rather than simply doing my work.
>
> Why do I put up with this inconvenience? Because each program has
> essential virtues over the other.
>
> For example, if I need to properly hyphenate my US English, I use
> LibreOffice as (to date), OpenOffice fails to properly hyphenate US
> English.
>
> But, if I need to create mailing lists, as I just did for Christmas cards,
> I use OpenOffice as its Avery 5160 template is more properly aligned than
> that found in LibreOffice.
>
> LibreOffice remembers my hierarchical stylelist setting, whereas
> OpenOffice does not, but OpenOffice more effectively supports the advanced
> Graphite features of the Linux Libertine font.
>
> So, depending on my specific needs, I bounce back and forth. I’m sure many
> would suggest that I help out by reporting bugs. I have done so, but even
> I
> get lost keeping track of the bugs of each program that I am most
> interested in following.
>
> I suspect this situation will only get worse as each program develops
> features that will be lacking in the other. And, while I’m not a
> developer,
> my guess is that both programs are so complex that keeping up with each
> other will become an increasingly elusive effort. And, the time will come
> when decisions will be made NOT to implement features found in the other
> program.
>
> I truly like the motivation generated with competition, and sometimes
> having multiple programs on my computer to meet specialized needs can be
> helpful. But, in the world of office suites, where user commitment is
> essential to effective use, it would be very helpful to us end users if
> TDF
> and Apache could somehow overcome their differences and join forces to
> give
> us one glorious office suites rather than two almost glorious office
> suites.
>
> These are just my thoughts.
>
> I’d be curious as to how many others are using both programs because of
> advantages of each over the other.
>
> Virgil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by Mike Lish <mi...@sba.eclipse.co.uk>.
Hi Carol,
You are definitely NOT out of line.
I'm not desk based and use OoO for the basics. I come from a military and
"hands on" manufacturing environment (now retired) where there must be
established procedure for every task, as I'm sure is the same for an office
environment.
I'm also a newby regarding the full potential use of OoO or Libre.
I am impressed with your succinct analysis of effort spent between the two.
Such a waste of time should not be necessary, and could not be tolerated
within any productive environment. Frankly, the reasons behind the split
don't interest me. and I am just as likely to use Libre as Open Office.
What does interest me is, why there isn't a global outcry for a focused
effort to produce one office suite to equal any paid for suite without all
this wasted, counter productive, time and effort needed for configuring it.
Why such a situation is tolerated for so long, when a combined, focused
effort is all it takes.
regards,
Mike Lish
On 10 December 2012 22:07, Carol-Virgil Arrington
<ar...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> I may be way out of line here, but I’m sending this post to the user lists
> for both LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice. I have both programs on my
> computer and regularly use both. Like many of you out there, I have
> subscribed to both user lists.
>
> I don’t know the full history behind the Libre/Oracle split, but from what
> I have read on various forums and lists, there is considerable emotional
> pain resulting from the split. The result is two different FOSS office
> suites.
>
> Some have pleaded for the two to combine forces. Others have noted that
> the competition is good for the end user as it results in more rapid
> development of improvements to both suites.
>
> I see both sides, but I’d like to point out one thing I have noticed in my
> own use of the two programs. Some computer programs are what I would call
> “load and use.” Programs like web browsers and mail clients, etc., require
> little to no configuration or customization. One can simply do productive
> use without much thought. I can easily bounce back and forth between
> Internet Explorer and Firefox, Live Mail and Thunderbird.
>
> Not so with office suites. To get the most out of my office suites, I
> create and edit templates, page, character and paragraph styles. I have to
> set the autocorrect functions of each program to my liking to prevent a (c)
> from turning into a ©. While it’s not essential, I tend to customize my
> toolbars and have created helpful macros. Effectively using an office suite
> requires a commitment akin to a marriage.
>
> For this reason, bouncing back and forth between two suites is
> counterproductive. I find myself importing and exporting settings, styles,
> and templates between the two programs rather than simply doing my work.
>
> Why do I put up with this inconvenience? Because each program has
> essential virtues over the other.
>
> For example, if I need to properly hyphenate my US English, I use
> LibreOffice as (to date), OpenOffice fails to properly hyphenate US English.
>
> But, if I need to create mailing lists, as I just did for Christmas cards,
> I use OpenOffice as its Avery 5160 template is more properly aligned than
> that found in LibreOffice.
>
> LibreOffice remembers my hierarchical stylelist setting, whereas
> OpenOffice does not, but OpenOffice more effectively supports the advanced
> Graphite features of the Linux Libertine font.
>
> So, depending on my specific needs, I bounce back and forth. I’m sure many
> would suggest that I help out by reporting bugs. I have done so, but even I
> get lost keeping track of the bugs of each program that I am most
> interested in following.
>
> I suspect this situation will only get worse as each program develops
> features that will be lacking in the other. And, while I’m not a developer,
> my guess is that both programs are so complex that keeping up with each
> other will become an increasingly elusive effort. And, the time will come
> when decisions will be made NOT to implement features found in the other
> program.
>
> I truly like the motivation generated with competition, and sometimes
> having multiple programs on my computer to meet specialized needs can be
> helpful. But, in the world of office suites, where user commitment is
> essential to effective use, it would be very helpful to us end users if TDF
> and Apache could somehow overcome their differences and join forces to give
> us one glorious office suites rather than two almost glorious office suites.
>
> These are just my thoughts.
>
> I’d be curious as to how many others are using both programs because of
> advantages of each over the other.
>
> Virgil
Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi Carol-Virgil,
Carol-Virgil Arrington schrieb:
> I may be way out of line here, but I’m sending this post to the user
> lists for both LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice. I have both
> programs on my computer and regularly use both. Like many of you out
> there, I have subscribed to both user lists.
[..]
>
> I’d be curious as to how many others are using both programs because
> of advantages of each over the other.
I use both, because I look, if bugs which I find, are specific to one of
them or can be seen in both.
For those settings, which has paths in Tools > Options I have created a
folder, which is neither in the AOO user folder nor in the LO user
folder, but on a separate place on my disk. So I have my templates,
autotexts, gallery and pictures in one place and use it from both
applications.
For macros it should be possible, to use libraries, which are linked,
but I have not tried it.
Kind regards
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org