Planet Free-Office

A collection of blogs from all Free-OpenSource Office vendors

July 02, 2009

Bob Sutor

Daily Links 07/02/2009 (p.m.)

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: News.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at July 02, 2009 08:30 PM

Firefox extensions – will they work in 3.5?

So Firefox 3.5 is out and I’m looking forward to trying it, but I can wait. Why? I use a number of extensions and I don’t want to be without them. Courtesy of the Extension List Dumper extension, here are the addons that I now use.

There really should be an easy way within Firefox to see which extensions you are now using will work or have upgrades for the most recent version of the browser. Is there an extension for that?

Also see the CNet story “Firefox add-ons: Which work in 3.5?”.

Also see the Mozilla Firefox add-on compatibility report.

Update: I decided to move to v 3.5 on my iMac/OS X but will stay on v 3.0.11 on my Lenovo work ThinkPad until the latest version is officially supported in the Ubuntu repositories. That way I can get experience with the new version while not abandoning my working environment.


Application: Firefox 3.0.11 (2009060308)

Operating System: Linux (x86-gcc3)

Total number of items: 9

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: Open Source.
Permalink | 2 comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at July 02, 2009 07:37 PM

Daily Links 07/02/2009 (a.m.)

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: News.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at July 02, 2009 08:30 AM

June 30, 2009

Bob Sutor

Daily Links 06/30/2009 (p.m.)

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: News.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at June 30, 2009 08:27 PM

Rob Weir

How I think Wikipedia works

I have a mental model of how Wikipedia works and behaves. This may not reflect reality, but it is how I, as an end-user, expect Wikipedia to behave. I think these are reasonable expectations regarding things like standards of proof and balance and that if the real Wikipedia differs substantially from these expectations, then we have a problem.

Please let me know if my mental model differs from reality.

First, I assume that we deal with facts, not opinions. So an editor cannot state a personal opinion such as, "Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made", since there is no objective, recognized scale for cinematic greatness.

However, saying, "Citizen Kane topped the list of 'Greatest Films' according to a 2002 poll of directors and film critics by Sight & Sound magazine" would be fine. It is a factual statement, albeit a statement about an opinion, but the factual portion of it is verifiable. It is a fact about an opinion and that is OK.

But if I made the statement, "Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made" and cited the Sight & Sound article, this would not be proper, since that article does not establish the fact of the greatest movie, but only the fact of a poll that collected opinions on the greatest movie. A fact about the existence of an opinion (or even a polled opinion) does not assert the truth of the opinion.

Similarly, a statement, "Gone with the Wind has been criticized for its long running time" would not be properly cited by merely referencing a source that states its length as 238 minutes. That citation would merely be evidence of its length, not that its length was inordinate. You need a citation for the length being criticized.

Similarly, if another recognized expert stated, "Gone with the Wind was too short and failed to cover the entire Mitchell novel", then I would expect both opinions to be mentioned, not merely selecting an arbitrary opinion.

I also expect that cited sources have recognized (not merely self-declared) expertise in the area. So, I would find it idiosyncratic if an article on cinema said, "Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made, according to a fan blog post by Joe Blow, a ophthalmologist in Podunk, Michigan", since he would be a source cited outside any area of recognized expertise.

I also, as a user, expect Wikipedia to give a balanced view of issues. This does not mean equal time to all fringe opinions. Although I expect there to be multiple views presented on the propriety of the Iraq War, I would not expect that someone who believes that Abraham Lincoln was an alien from the planet Quthbral to have a section in the Lincoln article, even if he could cite a blog post or a photocopied article, or self-published book on the subject. Ditto for Flat Earth Society members, holocaust deniers and those who think the Apollo moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood sound stage.

On the other hand, I don't expect that every fact requires a citation. For example as a user, I don't expect to see citations whenever someone says "Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun". Similarly, I would find it odd if someone removed that assertion for lack of a citation.

However, I would be suspicious if someone writes something in the form, "Mercury is the hottest planet because it is closest to the Sun". Although the it is well known that Mercury is the closest planet, it does not follow that it is the hottest. In fact, Venus is the hottest planet. It is a subtle form of editorializing, where an editor can inadvertently introduce personal assumptions into an article. I'm assuming Wikipedia editors are on the watch for this kind of thing.

On the other hand, some things clearly logically follow from known facts. If we know that John Brown was buried on January 23rd, 1582, then we should, absent contrary evidence, safely be able to state that his date of death was on or before January 23rd, 1582. I would not expect someone to revert such a statement as being unfounded, speculation, original research, etc. It logically follows based on our knowledge of how the world works.


Does anyone know whether the above statements have any basis in the aspirations or actual practice of Wikipedia editors and admins? Sadly, my recent reading of some articles suggests that these reasonable expectations are routinely flouted and bear little resemblance to reality.

by Rob (noreply@blogger.com) at June 30, 2009 04:41 PM

Solveig Haugland

How to put a drawing into a Writer document, safely, and more quickly, in OpenOffice

When you create a drawing in Draw, you often want to then paste it into a Writer document.

Dr1

However, if you just copy and paste, sometimes even though it comes in grouped together, pieces can shift.

Dr2

And especially then if you resize a drawing that includes text, you're going to end up with some wackiness.

Dr3

The best thing to do is to export that drawing to a PNG or other raster format file, then import it into Writer. (From Draw, File > Export, select a format, be sure to select Selection in the dialog box, and name the file. Then in Writer, choose Insert > Picture > From File and select the file.)

However, here's something that's quicker that prevents random shifting, and allows you to resize without getting weird results with text.

1. In Draw, make a copy of the drawing so you don't mess up the original. Simplest is to create a new slide (Insert > Slide), copy the drawing from the original slide to the new slide.

2. Select the whole drawing, right-click on a part of it and choose Convert > To Polygon.

Dr4

3. Select the converted drawing, copy it, and paste it into Writer. With pasting, you see that the flip of the thought bubble didn't happen.

Dr5

And when you resize, the text resizes.

Dr6

DON'T UNGROUP THE DRAWING AFTER YOU'VE PASTED IT INTO WRITER. You can regroup it but you'll likely notice the elements separating from each other before you realize you need to regroup it.

So don't right-click on the drawing in Writer and choose Group > Ungroup. Keep it grouped, which it is by default when you paste it in.

by training@getopenoffice.org (Solveig Haugland) at June 30, 2009 03:18 PM

Bob Sutor

Daily Links 06/30/2009 (a.m.)

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: News.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at June 30, 2009 08:27 AM

June 29, 2009

Rob Weir

ODF Plugfest



Although the term may be alien to some, "plugfests" have been around for around 20 years. A plugfest is when implementors of the same interface get together and test the interoperability of their products. In the beginning this was done with wired standards, USB, etc. (thus 'plug'). Over the years the term was applied to networking at all higher levels of the protocol stack. The concept is also applicable to document exchange formats like ODF.

We had an ODF Plugfest last week in the Hague. Although we've had interoperability workshops and camps before that attracted a handful of vendors, this was the first one that had nearly universal participation from ODF vendors. I'm not going to recap the details of the plugfest. Others have done that already. But I will share with you some of my conclusions, based on long discussions with other participants, from whose insights I have greatly benefited.

In an ideal world, specifications would be perfect and software applications would be bug-free and users would read the manuals and we would achieve perfect interoperability instantly by anointment of the salubrious unction of standardization. But to the extent this planet's population obdurately persists in imperfection, we are resigned to make additional efforts in pursuit of interoperability. We are not alone in this regard. The only standards that don't need to work on interoperability are those standards that no one implements.

We should use every licit technique at our disposal to give the user the best experience with ODF we can. In a competitive market you can not get away with telling your customer, "Sorry, your spreadsheet doesn't work because page 652, clause 23 says 'should' rather than 'shall'". If you did that you would not have that customer for long. (Unless, of course, you have a monopoly, in which case many seemingly irrational, anti-consumer actions can occur, seemingly without consequences.)

Further, I assert:
  1. Users want real-world interoperability, and not excuses
  2. Real-world interoperability is what users see and achieve in practice
  3. Where vendors have the will to interoperate, achieving interoperability is a known technical problem, with known engineering solutions, but where the will to interoperate is lacking, there are no technical means of compelling interoperability
  4. Interoperability lies at the intersection of technology, engineering standards, competition law, intellectual property and economics. There are no silver bullets, although there are a arsenal of proven techniques that can help to improve interoperability
  5. Achieving interoperability is facilitated by a variety of cooperative activities, including standardization, test case creation, implementation testing, online validators, plugfests, defect collection and reporting
Going forward there is a promising constellation of efforts converging around ODF interoperability:

  • The OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC, charged with creating an ODF test suite
  • The OASIS ODF TC, finishing up work on ODF 1.2
  • OfficeShots.org, providing a way to test the interoperability of a document in many ODF editors
  • The ODF Toolkit Union, especially their open source ODF Validator
  • The Plugfest participants, who continue to add information and test scenarios to the plugfest's wiki.
  • Groups such as OpenDoc Society and OpenForum Europe which lend their organizational skills and enthusiasm to the effort, and often much more.
So, we're moving in the right direction. The key thing will be to sustain the momentum from the Plugfest and transition it into an ongoing effort, a Perpetual and Virtual Plugfest where the effort and the progress is continuous.

[6/29/09: I've received some emails on the photo, so here are the details:

The picture was taken at 3:30PM on the 2nd day of the workshop.

The lens was a Pentax DA 10-17mm "fisheye" zoom at 10mm. So that explains the projection distortion. The graininess and B&W was from post-processing using Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro and Sharpener Pro.]

by Rob (noreply@blogger.com) at June 29, 2009 12:19 PM

Lukas Tvrdy

Photoshop Evolution

Inspirative post about Photoshop design evolution. At least for Krita developers :) You can see how the toolbar, the workspace, icons and about dialog evolved through the time.

by LukasT at June 29, 2009 08:03 AM

June 25, 2009

Solveig Haugland

Creating a template for postcards in OpenOffice so you don't need to redo the layout every time

This is a continuation of Monday's post on how to create postcards. See that post for how to do the exporting, positioning, etc.

So. You've created the postcards. But the positioning....while not overly onerous, is rework. And we don't like rework.

I'm not guaranteeing that this approach is a miracle but it might be nice for some people. Instead of redoing the inserting and positioning of the four graphics, you copy, then do an extra step, then export your new design over the old one.

Here's the basics. The rest of this blog provides more explanation.

Pcexplnaation

All right. Here we go. Here's your succesfully created 4-up set of graphics that will print nicely onto postcards.

Pc1

You need to set it up again, almost exactly the same way, but this time when you insert the picture, select Link as shown.

Pc2

Then copy and paste that linked graphic three times, position as appropriate, etc.

Here's what the linking gives you. It means that the pictures aren't sitting there in the document; they're linked directly to the actual postcard.png file and when it changes, the four versions of it in your document change.

Choose Edit > Links to see this.

Pc3

Here are those four links.

Pc4 

Close the window.

Here's what you do. You've got your postcardtemplate.odg file containing the four-up nicely positioned set of four PNGs for the postcards. When you're ready to make more postcards from a different design, do this. Copy that slide that has the four-up postcards in it. To do this, right-click on that thumbnail version of the slide at the left side of the document and choose Copy.

Pc5copy 

Then right-click in the blank area below that slide and click Paste.

Pc6paste

You'll be asked Before or After the current slide; click After.

Pc7after 

Now you've got two slides, four graphics in each, all the same.

Pc8

Choose Edit > Links and you'll see eight links.

 Pc9 

You want to keep the old setup with the old graphic (the barbecue chef) set up correctly in case you need to print it again and just because you want a history of what you've done. So you BREAK THE LINK to the old graphic, for that four-up slide. 

 This image shows the situation; click the image to see the text a bit bigger if you want.

Pc10explanationwithbreaklink 

Select the first four links and choose Break Link.

Pc11sure


The four remaining links are still looking at the postcard.png file.

Pc12

So if you overwrite that png file with, say, the contents of the birthday card design you just did, that slide that's still linked will change to show four birthday card postcards.

So go to your new design and select it, and choose File > Export. Select PNG. (Instead of actually overwriting postcard.png, you could rename it to something like design_06122009, or postcard_barbecue, or some other descriptive name.) You must name the new exported file postcard.png or at least exactly what the name is of the file that your postcardtemplate.odg file is linked to.

 Pc13

When you overwrite the postcard.png file, now the new image shows for the four-up slide that is still linked to it, and the unlinked one is unchanged. (The changes might take a bit to show up, you can close and reopen to force the change or in the Edit Links window click Update.)

Pc14 

Choose Edit > Links and you'll see it's linked to the same graphic, and there are still four links, but the graphic itself is different which forces the document to show the new design.

Pc15 

Once you've got the template set up properly linked, here's all you do each time you have a new design that you want to make postcards of.

Copy and paste a linked slide in postcardtemplate.png.

Break the links for the old design but leave four links.

Export the new design to the same file name, like postcard.png.

That's all.


by training@getopenoffice.org (Solveig Haugland) at June 25, 2009 12:44 PM

Rob Weir

ODF TC timeline

I used a variation of this chart at the recent ODF Plugfest in the Netherlands. But the aspect ratio of a presentation slide doesn't suit this type of chart well, so here is a fuller version of what I showed there.

Those who are not familiar with standards development are sometimes amazed at how long it takes to develop a good standard. Perhaps the single-vendor, 6,000 page, 12-month escapade of OOXML in Ecma has skewed expectations. Fortunately, OOXML is the exception, not the rule. Achieving a multi-vendor consensus around a substantial technical standard will always be time-consuming, but it is time that is well spent.

OASIS standards go through several stages of development:

  1. Working Draft (WD)
  2. Committee Draft (CD)
  3. Public Review Draft
  4. Committee Specification
  5. OASIS Standard
Progressing from one step to another is by ballot. The first 4 stages are advanced by vote of the Technical Committee (TC), while the last stage (OASIS Standard) is by a ballot of all OASIS members. As a draft advances through stages 1-4, an increasing degree of consensus is required. So, a CD requires only simple majority, whereas a Committee Specification requires 2/3 approval, with no more than 1/4 disapproval. Some of these stages allow iteration. So we can, and typically do, have several WD's and several CD's.

If you want more detail on the nitty-gritty details, here is a flow chart of the OASIS standards approval process.

I occasionally get a question along the lines of: "What has the ODF TC been doing for the past couple of years?" The following timeline should give you an idea. I've indicated the time spent developing ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1, along with some other milestone activities, such as the PAS transposition of ISO/IEC 26300, the publication of ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 01 and the creation of the various ODF subcommittees. I've also indicated the dates of each of the ODF 1.2 WD's and CD's.

As you can see, we've been quite busy. After iterating on WD's during 2007 and 2008, we've now moved on to CD's. All of the planned feature work for ODF 1.2 is now completed. The remaining work is to address the various editorial and technical comments that have been submitted to our comment list, as well comments from TC members and JTC1/SC34. The goal is to have no known defects in ODF 1.2 before we send it out for a Public Review. Of course, previously-unknown defects will likely be identified during the Public Review, and we have a process for handling these. I'll comment more on that process, and Public Reviews in general, when we get closer to that stage.

by Rob (noreply@blogger.com) at June 25, 2009 10:01 AM

June 24, 2009

Bob Sutor

Daily Links 06/24/2009 (p.m.)

  • “The house in question is an idyllic 16th century thatched cottage, just a 10-minute walk from the beach on the south coast of the Isle of Wight. It belongs to Andy Stanford-Clarke, who revels in the wonderful title of “distinguished engineer and master inventor” at IBM.”

    tags: OB, IBM, Twitter

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: News.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at June 24, 2009 08:27 PM

Daily Links 06/24/2009 (a.m.)

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: News.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at June 24, 2009 08:27 AM

June 23, 2009

Bob Sutor

Daily Links 06/23/2009 (a.m.)

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: News.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at June 23, 2009 08:27 AM

June 22, 2009

Bob Sutor

Daily Links 06/22/2009 (p.m.)

  • “This is of course a deeply unscientific state of things. And regardless of the scientific issue, I am one of those who feel that if dendro reference curves are produced with public funding, then they should be published on-line as a public resource.”

    tags: OB, trees, open source

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: News.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at June 22, 2009 08:27 PM

Solveig Haugland

Creating postcards in OpenOffice Draw

All right. Here is the big post.

We join this process in progress. You have created a new Draw drawing, using whatever techniques you wanted. Maybe you made it 8x11 for a little poster, or 11 x 17 on Tabloid paper for a bigger poster. At any rate, the design is done, it's whatever size it is, and you're ready to get some postcards out of the design.

Here it is. It's a design for the annual singing barbecue event in your town.

Draw1

1. First thing. Is this design going to be the right proportions for a postcard? Postcards are 3.5 x 5 inches. You could try to do the math but it's easiest to just do this.

Select the whole drawing. Then right-click somewhere on the drawing and choose Position and Size.

Draw2

Now in the Position and Size window, look at the size. It's not 5 x 3.5.

Draw3 

You're not going to change the size -- you're just going to see what the proportions are. Be sure that Keep Ratio is marked as shown and then type 5 in the height (or whatever the bigger measurement is of your drawing). See what the width (or the other measurement) is. If it's close to 3.5, then you're good. If it's not close to 3.5 then you should go back and change dimensions in your drawing to make it fit better proportionately into 5 x 3.5.

Draw4

Click Cancel. This was for information only.

2.  Assuming that your design is right proportionately for a postcard, the next step is to export the drawing to a PNG or other graphics format.

Why do you need to do this?  You need to do this if you need to resize it at all. I.e. if you did it big first for a poster and now need it in a smaller format for postcards, or if you didn't think about postcards in the first place and now need to resize. Because things can get a little unpredictable if you have a bunch of different objects, including text boxes, and then you try to scale them all down to a smaller size.  If you don't need to resize then you can skip this step.

So again, select all the items in your design. You must select all the items in the design or you will get an 8x11 graphic not one the size of the design.

Then choose File > Export.

Now navigate to the directory where you want the graphic and select PNG (or if you really want JPG or another format, select that). Also be sure that Selection is selected as shown. Name the graphic and click Save.

Draw5 

If you are prompted to specify compression, just leave it at 0. If prompted for quality as with JPGs, specify 100%.

3. Step 3, you insert the exported PNG and make it the right size. (If your design is already a perfect 3.5 x 5 and you didn't need to export to PNG for resizing, then you can skip this step as well.)

In a new Draw document, or in a new slide in the old Draw document, choose Insert > Picture > From File. Find the PNG you exported. Click Open.

Draw6

And here it is.

Draw7 

It's still not the right size. This time, you're going to right-click on the graphic and choose Position and Size, and change the size.

Draw8 

Select the Keep Ratio checkbox and change the longer of the measurements to 5. See how close you are to 3.5 for the other measurement.

Draw9

Once you see that you're quite close, you can unmark the Keep Ratio checkbox and just set the other measurement to 3.5 If you change the proportions a bit, it's typically not going to be that big a deal.

Draw10

Click OK.

Now it's the right size, if not the right position.

Draw11

4. In this step we create a total of four of the designs, positioned correctly.

If your design is already 3.5 x 5, just be sure that everything in the design is GROUPED. Select all the items in the design and right-click on it, and choose Group. Then copy the design to a new slide in that same drawing, or choose File > New > Drawing and paste the design into that new drawing.

Set the margins to 0 so that when you position the items it'll be from the edge of the document, not the edge of the margin. Choose Format > Page, click the Page tab, and apply the settings as shown. Click OK.

 Draw12

Now, let's say that you need to position the upper left corner of that first graphic .5 inch from the top and .5 inch from the left. If you just click on the graphic and drag, you'll see a light line coming out of the graphic going up onto the top ruler (the X axis is a way to think about that) and onto the side ruler (the Y axis). The lines are circled below. Just move the object until it's positioned on the .5 of each ruler.

Draw13

If you prefer more precision, you can go back to the Position and Size window. Right-click on the object, choose Position and Size.

Now in the X and Y axis fields, type .5 in each. That's where the upper left corner of the "Northwest" postcard should appear. (Adjust this if the paper you're using needs the postcards to be in a different location.) Click OK.

Draw14

The object is positioned correctly.

Now copy and paste the graphic to get the next one. We'll use the Position and Size window again, so right-click on it and choose Position and Size.

Draw15

Set the horizontal (X axis) to .5 inch plus the width of the card -- if the card is vertical then it's 3.5, otherwise it's 5.5. The Y axis is still .5 because you still want this item to be .5 inches from the top of the paper.

Draw16

Click OK.

Now, copy either the PNG or the drawing and paste two more times. It will paste on top of the original so, each time, just drag the pasted one off the top of the original and put it roughly where it's supposed to be.

The bottom left item should be in a half inch from the left (X axis) and in this scenario, should be 5.5 inches down from the top (Y axis). It's .5 plus the length of the card above it.

In the following illustration (click to see the bigger version) you can see that, because it's selected, faint gray lines show on the rulers to indicate where the top and bottom and left and right are.

Draw17

The following graphic makes it a bit more obvious; I've added red lines and highlighting to show that the light marks are even with the top of the object. Plus you can see, if you look at the bottom highlighting on this graphic, that the position in x and y coordinates for any selected object is shown on the bottom status bar of your Draw window.

Draw18 

This graphic shows the same thing, the lines I've added showing the bottom two.

Draw19 

When you've got four precisely lined up and positioned graphics, you're ready to print!

Draw20 

This might seem like a lot of work. It's much easier once you've done it a couple times. Plus, in the next blog I will outline a way that lets you just set this up once, then make a copy and have your export to PNG automatically get sucked into the 4-up postcard layout. So you'll never have to insert and resize and position the graphics again, just make the design, and export to PNG. It's fabulous. Stay tuned.

by training@getopenoffice.org (Solveig Haugland) at June 22, 2009 01:48 PM

Bob Sutor

Webcast: Migrating from Solaris to Red Hat Linux on IBM Systems

IBM will be hosting a webcast on said topic on Thursday, June 25, at 1 PM ET.

The webcast description is:

Interested in migrating from Solaris to Linux on IBM Systems, but concerned about technical gotchas in custom code and shell scripts? What you don’t know can matter, particularly when it comes to migrations. Fortunately, IBM has extensive experience in Solaris to Linux migrations, and can help you find potential hot spots and mitigate them easily.

Join us for a technical discussion led by the Linux Technology Center. We will cover key technical considerations when migrating. In particular, we will discuss how to use IBM’s Solaris to Linux Migration Assessment Toolkit, which provides automated shell script checking and C/C++ code analysis for common issues when migrating from Solaris to Linux.

Click here to register.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: Open Source.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at June 22, 2009 01:01 PM

Andy Updegrove

The EC Settlement: Rambus, Writs and the Rule of Law

 

Why did perennial litigant Rambus, Inc. settle with the European Commission?

Certainly the most watched standards-related legal conflict of the decade involves the participation of memory technology vendor Rambus, Inc. in a working group hosted by standards developer

June 22, 2009 11:30 AM

June 20, 2009

Bob Sutor

Upgrade Saturday

It was raining pretty hard this morning, so I had to delay some of my plans for outside work. Instead, I turned to doing some much needed website updates and upgrades. Here are some notes from that.

First, a couple of the open source tools, FileZilla and Komodo Edit, had upgrades available, so I installed those. Of the two, Komodo has the more automatic process, though I still think the FileZilla message about “installing the upgrade whatever way you installed the original” is pretty honest and funny.

WordPress logo

Next it was on to WordPress for the blog support. I’ve been updating the plugins fairly regularly as I see the notices about those whenever I need to approve a comment. WordPress 2.8 became available a few days ago so I decided to install it. I watched the little video the WordPress folks prepared and decided to go for it. Normally I try to wait for the x.y.1 release, but I felt bold.

After backing up my files and the database, the automatic upgrade for WordPress itself went fine. Once 2.8 was in place, three plugins then wanted to be upgraded, so I did that. The WP-DBManager plugin, which does database backups and restores, then started to put messages on every page about an .htaccess file needing to be moved into my backup-db directory from the plugin directory. The only problem was that there was no such file in the plugin directory. After forcing FileZilla to show hidden files (via the Server menu), I found an htaccess.txt file. So I downloaded this, put it in the backup-db directory, renamed it to .htaccess, and the warning messages went away. Now, presumably, my database backups are not publicly accessible.

When looking at the blog after the upgrade, I noticed that the links on the left hand side were not being displayed. I checked to make sure the My Link Order plugin was current, which it was, and then deactivated and reactivated it. This fixed the problem, but only after a little web research didn’t turn up any other likely culprits. Incidentally, I restored the recent comments listing in the right hand column of the blog. These somehow went away when I switched to the new theme.

Drupal logo

After the WordPress half of the site and my lunch was finished, I turned to Drupal. The Administrative console had been warning me that I needed to upgrade from version 6.10 to 6.12 for quite some time but I hadn’t gotten around to it. Frankly, upgrading between Drupal upgrades is a pain in the neck, no matter how much I like the software (and I do, very much). It is far too manual a process. Nevertheless, I got the new code, made sure my customizations and additions were copied over, and installed the latest. Once everything was on the site, I ran the upgrade script, and I was done.

We need to get a point with all this type of software where these is a one button upgrade process. WordPress is pretty much there, but other software providers should follow their lead. Let me say, though, that I am very appreciative of all this fine open source software and the thousands of hours put into my developers. It’s truly beautiful, elegant stuff.

Postscript: After I installed WordPress 2.8, I read that version 2.8.1 will soon be available. One of the big bugs it will fix is in the automatic upgrade process. Evidently it can delete the wrong files if something goes wrong. This did not happen to me, but you might want to wait if you are nervous about it and you might have to manually reinstall some of the core files from the source file installation set.

Facebook Digg Google Bookmarks del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon LinkedIn


© Robert S. Sutor for Bob Sutor, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Posted under: Blog and Website.
Permalink | No comments
Twitter streams: bob_sutor, bob_sutor_log

by Bob Sutor at June 20, 2009 07:23 PM

June 19, 2009