On 6/23/11 3:40 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
> This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
> creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
I'm just an LO user, not a programmer, beta tester, proof reader, I just
want a reliable set of programs.
I'm not trying to "rain on anyone's parade", but I have to ask...
Wouldn't a project like this be simply "reinventing the wheel"? (I see
I'm not the only one with this viewpoint.)
I've just read the entire thread up to this point, and have these
1. Why? As another poster noted, there are already free readers for
PDF out there as alternatives to Adobe Reader. As you can tell from my
signature, I use a Mac. OS X gives me the ability to read PDF files
within the OS files, right out of the box. Of what use would I need
another reader for? Plus, OS X gives me the option to create a PDF file
as part of the print dialogue.
2. Creating another program from LO means another program that needs
support. I'd rather see LO's resources be applied to adding new
features, fixing bugs, and streamlining the code to make it run faster.
Docx file handling and Base apparently have numerous problems, at
least that's my impression from the User mailing list. As soon as Adobe
or whomever changes the PDF specifications, LO would have to spend time
and resources to fix the code in any LO reader. (And not the first to
think of fixing bugs. :-) )
3. MS has a reason to produce a viewer for MS Office. A lot of people
don't have the product. If you send an Office file to someone who does
not have Office, they would have to buy it. :-) But, LO is free, why
have a reader that just reads PDF and/or open document files, when you
can download the entire product, and then edit and make changes? Maybe
it would be a decent idea to allow users to simply download the portion
of LO they actually need and will use, rather than the whole package. (I
see I'm not the first one to think of this. :-) ) There are some
alternative office packages for Windows that allow this. Crystal Office
is one, and I suspect there are others. Papyrus and Ashampoo Office
contain only the most used portions of a full office suite.
4. Someone mentioned X number of LO users. And I would say.... So?
That's no guarantee they will use the viewer. Why would they? They
have the suite. I would think the most likely group of users to
need/use any LO reader would be users who do *not* have LO installed.
5. LO is not the only office suite out there, especially for the
Windows platform, that are simpler than MS Office, and cheaper. Many of
them read/write some version of MS Office files.
6. If exchanging files for editing is the goal, and the files are basic
word processor files, there's always RTF.
Just this user's perspective on the idea of a reader from LO.
Size of the Adobe install has been mentioned. On my Mac, Reader 10,
approaches 300 MB.
Personally, if the document is important to me, I find reading the
printed version to be easier than on screen. And I can sit in my
favorite chair, instead of in front of a computer. FYI, I hate laptops.
This is a late reply, my apologies. But, it appears the Gmane interface
is not working for me when I want to post. There seems to be no issue
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader" · Ken Springer
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy