Watching PPS
James Hopone
open and watch a PPS?
Thanks all..
E Z Peaces
M-M
James Hopone <nospanjam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just use Quick Look. Highlight the file and hit the spacebar. Then use
the arrow keys to go through the files.
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
Fred Moore
or NeoOffice, the free, more Macified version of OpenOffice.org.
<http://www.neooffice.org/>
Larry Gusaas
NeoOffice. The company that takes OpenOffice.org code
modifies/improves?/fixes it then releases it under a different license
so OpenOffice.org can not use any of the fixes they develop.
Also the company that does not provide user support anymore unless you
contribute money to the project.
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
Mike Dee
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> E Z Peaces <ca...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > James Hopone wrote:
> > > Other then MS Power Point what is a good program for Mac that I can open
> > > and watch a PPS?
[...]
> > Open Office. It's free.
>
> or NeoOffice, the free, more Macified version of OpenOffice.org.
> <http://www.neooffice.org/>
That "may have" been the case prior to version 3.x of OpenOffice.org, my
preference these days is for OO.o
YMMV
--
dee
johnny bobby bee
> NeoOffice. The company that takes OpenOffice.org code
> modifies/improves?/fixes it then releases it under a different license
Are you sure about this? Doesn't OpenOffice use the GPL? I'm no lawyer,
but surely, the GPL doesn't allow for this.
Larry Gusaas
OpenOffice.org uses the LGPL. NeoOffice uses the GPL
PS: Don't forget the .org part of OpenOffice.org. That is the official
name. Open Office is the name of a different company.
Richard Maine
If you were a lawyer (not that I am either), you would certainly want to
get data more directly than from highly biased heresay. In particular,
NeoOfice is released under the GPL. Last time I checked, the GPL allows
one to release things under the GPL. :-) It isn't exactly difficult to
check this yourself; go to NeoOffice.org. The FAQ link is pretty
prominent, as is the discussion in the FAQ of the software being
released under GPL.
I'm not going to get in the middle of some NeoOffice vs OpenOffice
debate. I don't know enough about it to do so, and I don't like debating
such things anyway. For the very little it is worth, I've used both at
times, but currently I'm using OpenOffice. I presume there is at least
some element of truth in what Larry said. But it is evident on the
surface that it is presented in a highly biased way. I'd advise against
making judgements based on it alone.
In particular, I don't know what Larry means by the license being
"different", but I give him the benefit of the doubt that this is true
on at least some level. "Different", however, does not appear to mean
non-GPL.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
Larry Gusaas
> johnny bobby bee <stepore-n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Larry Gusaas took to the world wide interwebs to proclaim:
>>> NeoOffice. The company that takes OpenOffice.org code
>>> modifies/improves?/fixes it then releases it under a different license
>>
>> Are you sure about this? Doesn't OpenOffice use the GPL? I'm no lawyer,
>> but surely, the GPL doesn't allow for this.
>
> If you were a lawyer (not that I am either), you would certainly want to
> get data more directly than from highly biased heresay.
It is note heresay, it is fact.
> In particular,
> NeoOfice is released under the GPL. Last time I checked, the GPL allows
> one to release things under the GPL. :-) It isn't exactly difficult to
> check this yourself; go to NeoOffice.org. The FAQ link is pretty
> prominent, as is the discussion in the FAQ of the software being
> released under GPL.
Why didn't you check out OpenOffice.org licensing as well? It is
released under the LGPL. They can't use anything released under the GPL.
Also, third-party developers are required to sign an agreement that
effectively transfers copyright of their code to Sun Microsystems Inc.
NeoOffice developers refuse to do so.
> I'm not going to get in the middle of some NeoOffice vs OpenOffice
> debate. I don't know enough about it to do so, and I don't like debating
> such things anyway. For the very little it is worth, I've used both at
> times, but currently I'm using OpenOffice. I presume there is at least
> some element of truth in what Larry said. But it is evident on the
> surface that it is presented in a highly biased way. I'd advise against
> making judgements based on it alone.
If you don't want to get in the middle, you should do some more research
before calling someones view highly biased. I am biased because I have
done the research.
> In particular, I don't know what Larry means by the license being
> "different", but I give him the benefit of the doubt that this is true
> on at least some level. "Different", however, does not appear to mean
> non-GPL.
You checked out NeoOffice's license but failed to check out
OpenOffice.org's license. As I mentioned before, it is the LGPL.
Richard Maine
> On 2010/01/02 1:24 AM nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> > If you were a lawyer (not that I am either), you would certainly want to
> > get data more directly than from highly biased heresay.
>
> It is note heresay, it is fact.
You might want to look up what heresay means. It does not mean that the
statement is non-factual. Testifying about what someone else said, or in
this case, what the license terms are, is heresay. Getting the data by
other than heresay would mean going directly to the source and reading
it there, rather than reading what someone else says that the license
says.
> If you don't want to get in the middle, you should do some more research
> before calling someones view highly biased. I am biased because I have
> done the research.
The bias was evident without even checking further. The whole tone of
the post oozed bias. Your statement above directly confirms my judgement
on that. You yourself say "I am biased because I have done the
research." Note the "I am biased" part of that statement.
I did not say that your biases were wrong. I said that they existed,
which you just explicitly confirmed.
Larry Gusaas
> Larry Gusaas <larry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010/01/02 1:24 AM nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
>>> If you were a lawyer (not that I am either), you would certainly want to
>>> get data more directly than from highly biased heresay.
>>
>> It is note heresay, it is fact.
>
> You might want to look up what heresay means.
Did you look it up? I can't find "heresay" in my dictionaries.
Perhaps you mean "Hearsay"? In non legalize use it is usually used in a
derogatory manner to undermine someone's statement. This is from one of
my dictionaries:
hearsay |ˈhɪəseɪ|
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately
substantiate; rumor : according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break
his arm.
and from it's thesaurus:
hearsay
noun
that's all hearsay, and I don't care to listen to such tripe: rumor,
gossip, tittle-tattle, idle talk; stories, tales; informal the
grapevine, scuttlebutt, loose lips.
And when you combine hearsay with bias, it is usually and attempt to
discredit someone's statement.
> It does not mean that the
> statement is non-factual. Testifying about what someone else said, or in
> this case, what the license terms are, is heresay. Getting the data by
> other than heresay would mean going directly to the source and reading
> it there, rather than reading what someone else says that the license
> says.
And have you done so yet? Have you found out that anything released
under the GPL and then reused has to then be released under the GPL and
cannot be released under the LGPL which is the license that
OpenOffice.org uses?
>> If you don't want to get in the middle, you should do some more research
>> before calling someones view highly biased. I am biased because I have
>> done the research.
>
> The bias was evident without even checking further. The whole tone of
> the post oozed bias. Your statement above directly confirms my judgement
> on that. You yourself say "I am biased because I have done the
> research." Note the "I am biased" part of that statement.
>
> I did not say that your biases were wrong. I said that they existed,
> which you just explicitly confirmed.
When someone calls someone's statement biased hearsay (if that is what
you intended when you wrote "heresay" or did you mean "heresy?'), it is
usually done to discredit someone's statement.
I did not see you write anything about OpenOffice.org's license, only
about NeoOffice's license. So obviously your statements are very biased
as well.
E Z Peaces
couldn't even save from the keyboard, and "save" didn't always work.
Somehow I lost a lot of work on one document.
3.x was supposed to be better, but their site said it wasn't available
for a PPC (or maybe any Mac) in English.
I found it peculiar that it seemed to be available in every other
language. Hidden away in a forum was a tip that in fact it was
available in English, but finding it was tricky. I don't know why in
the world openoffice.org operated that way.
I have 3.1.1. When I first save a document, I have to save it to the
desktop because I can't navigate to the folder I want. It takes a long
time to launch and to open a document. It seems there are other delays.
Is NeoOffice better?
Fred Moore
Larry Gusaas <larry....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010/01/01 4:09 PM Fred Moore wrote:
> > In article<hhldnu$u3d$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > E Z Peaces<ca...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> James Hopone wrote:
> >>
> >>> Other then MS Power Point what is a good program for Mac that I can open
> >>> and watch a PPS?
> >>> Thanks all..
> >>>
> >> Open Office. It's free.
> >>
> > or NeoOffice, the free, more Macified version of OpenOffice.org.
> > <http://www.neooffice.org/>
>
> NeoOffice. The company that takes OpenOffice.org code
> modifies/improves?/fixes it then releases it under a different license
> so OpenOffice.org can not use any of the fixes they develop.
> Also the company that does not provide user support anymore unless you
> contribute money to the project.
Since 'facts' came up later in this thread, it is a FACT that OOo has
always treated the Mac as an afterthought. I and many others have
firsthand knowledge of this. Otherwise, NeoO wouldn't have ever been
developed.
Now what I know from hearsay is that the NeoO folks, both before they
started the project and after, have largely been given the cold shoulder
by OOo despite having offered code back to OOo. OOo wasn't interested in
cooperating in developing for a 'third-rate platform'.
Fred Moore
Mike Dee <emte...@emteedee.invalid> wrote:
Please don't get me wrong, OOo3 Aqua is an excellent app. It is after
all the basis of NeoO3. However, having worked with both, I find that
NeoO is generally easier to work with and (more importantly) more
stable. Also, NeoO has the Mac and Mac user at the heart of its reason
for existence. Its goal is to make an excellent word processing app even
better **for*Mac*users**. It has many large and small features for Mac
users that OOo doesn't have.
Here is a link to compare some features of NeoO3, OOo3, and M$O2008:
<http://neowiki.neooffice.org/index.php/NeoOffice_Feature_Comparison>
And here is a NeoO forum thread in which I participated discussing the
issue of NeoO3 vs OOo3:
<http://trinity.neooffice.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=69
03&highlight=>
Paul Sture
nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> You might want to look up what heresay means. It does not mean that the
> statement is non-factual. Testifying about what someone else said, or in
> this case, what the license terms are, is heresay. Getting the data by
> other than heresay would mean going directly to the source and reading
> it there, rather than reading what someone else says that the license
> says.
Sorry to be pedantic, but are we talking about hearsay or heresy here?
--
Paul Sture
Mike Dee
> Mike Dee <emte...@emteedee.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
[...]
>> > or NeoOffice, the free, more Macified version of
>> > OpenOffice.org. <http://www.neooffice.org/>
>>
>> That "may have" been the case prior to version 3.x of
>> OpenOffice.org, my preference these days is for OO.o
>>
[...]
>
> Here is a link to compare some features of NeoO3, OOo3, and
> M$O2008:
> <http://neowiki.neooffice.org/index.php/NeoOffice_Feature_Comparison>
If there was one thing that would find me using NeoOffice in favour
of OOo it would be this: "EPS preview and printing", as noted in the
above linked page. In OOo this is non-existant on any platform
let alone Mac.
Thanks for the link.
--
dee
E Z Peaces
Thanks, I'll look at NeoOffice again. I tried it a few days ago and
immediately missed the grammar checker I have for OpenOffice.
Then I discovered that having OpenOffice check grammar as I wrote was
what was bogging down my PPC (and most of the alarms were false).