From: David Cantrell Date: 17:09 on 16 May 2005 Subject: OpenOffice.ooOOOOOOoooOOOoooook EEEeek! eeek! oooOOOOOK! Bastard software, used to have a nice simple name like Open Office, but now the crack monkeys have been at it and we're meant to call it O0o, or oOo, or ooo ooo ooo ooo-oo-ooo ooo-oo-ooo or doobie-doo or something equally stupid. But that's not what I hate right now. Right now, I have two documents open, in two windows. Both contain tables. In both documents, my cursor is in a table cell. In the active document (you know, the one that my window mangler has highlighted, and where the cursor moves around when i mash my fists on the keyboard, and THE ONE I JUST FUCKING RIGHT-CLICKED IN TO GET A CONTEXT MENU) i select the "row" option, then "delete" and it deletes the current row in the wrong document. I find this to be quite annoying. Jeeves, fetch my sword!
From: David Cantrell Date: 14:15 on 18 May 2005 Subject: Re: OpenOffice.ooOOOOOOoooOOOoooook EEEeek! eeek! oooOOOOOK! This hateful thing has found even more ways to suck. It doesn't understand the -geometry argument. So because the last time I ran it I was using a bigger screen, I now can't reach the bottom of the window. This is truly hateful.
From: Ann Barcomb Date: 14:32 on 18 May 2005 Subject: Re: OpenOffice.ooOOOOOOoooOOOoooook EEEeek! eeek! oooOOOOOK! On Wed, 18 May 2005, David Cantrell wrote: > This hateful thing has found even more ways to suck. It doesn't > understand the -geometry argument. So because the last time I ran it > I was using a bigger screen, I now can't reach the bottom of the window. > This is truly hateful. Well, that's not just Open Office. I see it in Word at work, so I think it must be a design decision. Somewhere someone once thought that the display width and height were actual document qualities, as opposed to user preferences. I only use Word on one machine. But I see the result of this inane model whenever I receive a document from someone who had a bigger screen. The outside outline retains my previous setting (usually partial screen), but the document itself expands to whatever the other person wanted. At least that is what I think is happening--otherwise the sizing is truely random. This quality always makes me want to shrink my documents to near invisibility before I send them.
From: David Cantrell Date: 16:47 on 18 May 2005 Subject: Re: OpenOffice.ooOOOOOOoooOOOoooook EEEeek! eeek! oooOOOOOK! On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:32:14AM -0600, Ann Barcomb wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2005, David Cantrell wrote: > >This hateful thing has found even more ways to suck. It doesn't > >understand the -geometry argument. So because the last time I ran it > >I was using a bigger screen, I now can't reach the bottom of the window. > >This is truly hateful. > Well, that's not just Open Office. I see it in Word at work, so I > think it must be a design decision. Somewhere someone once thought > that the display width and height were actual document qualities, as > opposed to user preferences. If it wants to do that by default I'd not object much. But every other X app in the entire universe understands -geometry so that I can override it when I want. OpenOffice.ooOOOOOOoooOOOoooook should do the same. Word comes from an environment which doesn't have such pleasing and useful things as a working command line so can't really be compared.
From: Bruce Richardson Date: 16:57 on 18 May 2005 Subject: Re: OpenOffice.ooOOOOOOoooOOOoooook EEEeek! eeek! oooOOOOOK! On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:32:14AM -0600, Ann Barcomb wrote: > Well, that's not just Open Office. I see it in Word at work, so I > think it must be a design decision. Somewhere someone once thought > that the display width and height were actual document qualities, as > opposed to user preferences. Heh. With Word, the print tray is a document property. If somebody with printer X sets that property in a Word document and sends it to you, with a different model of printer, Word will not fall back to your default preferences but will assign a random tray from your actual printer to be the one that is used. The chances of it being the one you wanted seem to be slim.
From: Paul Holden Date: 18:16 on 18 May 2005 Subject: Re: OpenOffice.ooOOOOOOoooOOOoooook EEEeek! eeek! oooOOOOOK! On 2005-05-18 06:32, Ann Barcomb wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2005, David Cantrell wrote: > >> This hateful thing has found even more ways to suck. It doesn't >> understand the -geometry argument. So because the last time I ran it >> I was using a bigger screen, I now can't reach the bottom of the window. >> This is truly hateful. > > > Well, that's not just Open Office. I see it in Word at work, so I > think it must be a design decision. Somewhere someone once thought No kidding. I have the resolution on my Windows machine set to 1152 X 864 (not sure where that number came from). If I reboot, which I try to avoid, the machine comes up and thinks I've got a 27" monitor. To solve it, I reboot a second time, at which point it realizes that the screen is really only 19". At least it doesn't try to help me out by resetting my resolution. Paul
From: David Champion Date: 19:46 on 18 May 2005 Subject: Re: OpenOffice.ooOOOOOOoooOOOoooook EEEeek! eeek! oooOOOOOK! * On 2005.05.18, in <428B786A.9090905@xxxxxxxx.xx>, * "Paul Holden" <pholden@xxxxxxxx.xx> wrote: > > No kidding. I have the resolution on my Windows machine set to 1152 X > 864 (not sure where that number came from). If I reboot, which I try to It's the largest approx. 4:3 screen ratio whose product fits in a round numnber of megabytes of video RAM at whatever bit depth, and both 1152 and 864 are multiples of 32, which is the number of bits in a word of video RAM at the time the resolution was adopted. Sun displays ran at this resolution for many years, because they didn't need no steenking CGA/EGA/VGA/XVGA/XGA whatever kind of bollocks and just wanted to maximize the storage capacity of the video device. I'm just glad people are finally starting to get off their ridiculous television-based video standards.
Generated at 10:27 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi