On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 23:39 +, Avi wrote:
> Bruno Girin wrote:
> >
> > There are plans to change this from 11.04 forward so that new software
> > or new versions of existing software (like Firefox 4) can be included
> > without having to manually add a PPA.
> >
>
> Really? I thought PPA's we
On 22 Feb 2011, at 17:55, Dave Morley wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 17:00 +, Alan Lord (News) wrote:
>> On 20/02/11 13:54, Liam Proven wrote:
>>>
>>> The following, although it may seem petter, isn't. It's important. I
>>> don't want to seem ungrateful but it's kind of a big deal.
>>
>>
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 17:00 +, Alan Lord (News) wrote:
> On 20/02/11 13:54, Liam Proven wrote:
> >
> > The following, although it may seem petter, isn't. It's important. I
> > don't want to seem ungrateful but it's kind of a big deal.
>
> For you it maybe. For many others I doubt it very much.
On 20/02/11 13:54, Liam Proven wrote:
The following, although it may seem petter, isn't. It's important. I
don't want to seem ungrateful but it's kind of a big deal.
For you it maybe. For many others I doubt it very much.
*Please*, do not use that bulletin-board style "@Liam" thing again, to
On 22 Feb 2011 16:28, "Alan Lord (News)" wrote:
>
> Wow!
>
> Hassan, if you are replying to several people in one message then using
@soandso is fine by me. :-)
>
> I do not think we need to be so prescriptive as to require rules about the
syntax of how to reply.
>
> It's the same as top or bottom
On 22/02/11 15:26, Hassan "Haz" Williamson wrote:
On 20 February 2011 13:54, Liam Proven mailto:lpro...@gmail.com>> wrote:
*Please*, do not use that bulletin-board style "@Liam" thing again, to
anyone on any mailing list. I missed your message because it wasn't
threaded as a response
On 20 February 2011 13:54, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> *Please*, do not use that bulletin-board style "@Liam" thing again, to
> anyone on any mailing list. I missed your message because it wasn't
> threaded as a response to me.
>
>
My sincerest apologies, I shall avoid doing so in future. I've been try
Bruno Girin wrote:
>
> There are plans to change this from 11.04 forward so that new software
> or new versions of existing software (like Firefox 4) can be included
> without having to manually add a PPA.
>
Really? I thought PPA's were a reasonably elegant way of 'fixing'
stability. Have you li
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Hassan "Haz" Williamson
wrote:
> @Liam, You could have saved yourself some heart ache by just installing
> LibreOffice with the PPA.
Thanks for the tip, I shall look into it. I don't recall how I
installed LO on my desktop, but I don't see any repos for LO in my
s
On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 11:37 +, Simon Greenwood wrote:
> Is there anything significant preventing LO being put into the
> Ubuntu Software Centre? When LO gets into Ubuntu as it will,
> in 11.04, I will certainly use it, but my tech experience
> level is not real
On 20 February 2011 10:30, alan c wrote:
> On 19/02/11 06:05, Hassan "Haz" Williamson wrote:
>
>> @Mac, Thanks for that. Interesting read. Personally I'm going where the
>> developers are, I have a feeling that Oracle might try to swing things to
>> their favour and might close down some aspects
On 19/02/11 06:05, Hassan "Haz" Williamson wrote:
@Mac, Thanks for that. Interesting read. Personally I'm going where the
developers are, I have a feeling that Oracle might try to swing things to
their favour and might close down some aspects of OOo - either that or try
to incorporate their own p
On 19/02/2011 13:16, Sean Miller wrote:
Having worked with Oracle for 22 years I think I perhaps have less distrust
of Larry Ellison's company than some
Oh, I don't distrust them. On the contrary, I trust them to do what
they do very well: invent ways of making money. In the case of OOo,
t
On 19 February 2011 07:00, mac wrote:
> On 19/02/2011 06:05, Hassan "Haz" Williamson wrote:
>
>> @Mac, Thanks for that. Interesting read. Personally I'm going where the
>> developers are, I have a feeling that Oracle might try to swing things to
>> their favour and might close down some aspects o
On 19/02/11 10:26, Neil Greenwood wrote:
On 19 Feb 2011, at 08:59, Gordon Burgess-Parker
wrote:
On 19/02/11 06:05, Hassan "Haz" Williamson wrote:
@Liam, You could have saved yourself some heart ache by just
installing LibreOffice with the PPA.
The one MAJOR problem with doing it that way
On 19 Feb 2011, at 08:59, Gordon Burgess-Parker
wrote:
On 19/02/11 06:05, Hassan "Haz" Williamson wrote:
@Liam, You could have saved yourself some heart ache by just
installing LibreOffice with the PPA.
The one MAJOR problem with doing it that way is if you don't use
Evolution for ema
On 19/02/11 06:05, Hassan "Haz" Williamson wrote:
@Liam, You could have saved yourself some heart ache by just
installing LibreOffice with the PPA.
The one MAJOR problem with doing it that way is if you don't use
Evolution for email. The ppa version will NOT use any other address book
as a
I really don't understand why the one on the LibreOffice website is so
complicated to try and get it to work. It might scare some people away
from using it, which would be a shame. I'm sure they'll make it easier
as time passes though.
e-mail them and say it looks complex and why, they a
On 19/02/2011 06:05, Hassan "Haz" Williamson wrote:
@Mac, Thanks for that. Interesting read. Personally I'm going where the
developers are, I have a feeling that Oracle might try to swing things to
their favour and might close down some aspects of OOo - either that or try
to incorporate their own
@Mac, Thanks for that. Interesting read. Personally I'm going where the
developers are, I have a feeling that Oracle might try to swing things to
their favour and might close down some aspects of OOo - either that or try
to incorporate their own proprietary database system in somehow. I could be
wr
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:44 AM, mac wrote:
> Just to follow up the recent thread - I guess some but not all of us may
> have come across this:
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/d/applications/open-office-dilemma-openofficeorg-vs-libreoffice-716
Interesting - thanks for that.
I have LibreOffice 3.3 r
Just to follow up the recent thread - I guess some but not all of us may
have come across this:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/applications/open-office-dilemma-openofficeorg-vs-libreoffice-716
mac
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubun
22 matches
Mail list logo
