Autocorrection in OOo 3.1.1 and shortcut for navigating in Firefox when zoomed in

Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell at
Fri Jul 16 23:20:17 UTC 2010

Marcel, did you really write all this shit because you can't make
autocorrect work in OpenOffice?

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Marcel Rieux <m.z.rieux at> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Alan Cox <alan at>wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:14:07 -0400
>> Marcel Rieux <m.z.rieux at> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Alan Cox <alan at>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Ok, so that's why it's OK if it doesn't work! Windows at $35 (OEM)
>> for
>> > > 5-7
>> > > > years seems a better alternative though. Red Hat salesmen must be
>> really
>> > > > competent. I certainly couldn't sell one Red Hat copy for sure.
>> > >
>> > > If you want to run Windows then do so.
>> >
>> >
>> > Hey, that's exactly the answer I said wouldn't help Red Hat. Great! I'm
>> > surprised it comes from a former kernel maintainer. Maybe that's the
>> spirit
>> > at Red Hat?
>> I don't work for or speak for Red Hat.
> Not anymore, but you certainly were close to Red Hat:
> "Alan was employed by the Linux distributor Red Hat during 1999-2009. He is
> as of 2010 employed by Intel."
> That's not another Aln Cox, is it?
>  > > Fedora is a *project* not a product.
>> > What's this supposed to mean? That you can escape all problems by
>> sending
>> > users to Bugzillas?
>> It's like the difference between watching Germany lose at football, and
>> playing football. In the former case you pay money for and it may or may
>> not do what you want, in the latter case you are part of making something
>> happen.
> Do you really believe that the OEMs who use Android will tell their users:
> "Buzz off, you don't contribute code" and refer them to some android_this or
> that .org that nobody knows who the maintainer really is, that provide false
> information for months, if not years? Fedora does this. It lets anybody use
> their name, Google won't, unless an OEM puts its name on the product it has
> modified.
> This won't happen because whichever OEM treats users like shit will lose
> market share. Open Source is a new game. It's not a developers' gizmo
> anymore, it's now out in the open world and brings in lots of revenue. Users
> problems will have to be taken into consideration.
>> > management at Google's? They're people who have one thing in sight: the
>> > user. And they succeed. People who have geek "projects" in mind fail. Of
>> Oh yes - like the iphone where they don't allow users to install software
>> they want ?
> You really believe I'm an Apple apostle? :) I find Apple's business model
> is just horrible. It's a plain rip-off. But they cater to know-nothing
> people who are really willing to pay a fortune not to be sent searching all
> over the web. It works. Why can't Red Hat develop a business model that is
> not a rip-off for desktop users?
> When a site such as provides wrong information to install
> nvidia drivers, why doesn't Red Hat complain that somebody using its...
> subsidiary (see my previous post) name is diffusing wrong info?
> Why should they do this? Maybe they will sell contracts at
> $320/year/desktop. Working against Fedora helps Red Hat sell contracts which
> are really way too expensive. I would think they don't sell many, though.
> Goldman $... oops & Sachs did a really bad job as a main underwriter for
> Red Hat's introduction on the Stock Exchange. Do you remember how shares
> went from $14 to ~$300?(1) This certainly made Bob Young and his wife -- you
> remember Bob Young, don't you? -- fabulously rich, but it set a money
> culture in Red Hat that, in my opinion, won't, in the long run, help Red Hat
> stick to the straight and narrow.
> ============
> (1) Someday, when you feel like reading  something else than code, learn
> more about Goldman & Sachs, see:
> A search on "laddering" is advised. Rolling Stone will certainly tell you
> more than the Wall Street Journal, which would see all its revenue dwindle
> if they ever published such an article. Mr Taibbi does a really good job!
> ======================
> Now, you can say if Bob Young got hundred of millions for next to nothing,
> the present EO's are certainly worth a few millions a year but, meanwhile,
> Shuttleworth not only doesn't make a cent, he puts some of his own to
> accelerate Canonical development. And whereas all Red Hat offers is
> $320/year support contracts, Ubuntu offers its users some music and films.
> This makes more sense. How come Red Hat's multi-millionaires *EOs can't
> figure this out? They're mighty slow!
> > course, Red Hat is moving forward but is it at the right pace? Google,
> who
> > went public five years after Red Hat now has 25x the market
> capitalization.
> > If your good friend :) Linux Torvalds had to entrust Linux's future to a
> > company, which one  would it be?
> Actually his name is Linus
> Nowadays, it's pretty much Linux Torvalds :)
> > I strongly believe more attention should be given to users' problems and
> > wills.
>  So stop just believing and start doing. Ranting on email lists rarely
>> changes the world. Fedora is a project - so like the football team, if
>> you think you can do better, stop whining from the touch line and start
>> playing - and if you don't like the club you can start your own or join
>> another one.
> Of course, drawing a picture of the present Red Hat situation is just
> nothing. No doubt Taibbi shouldn't get paid either, I mean, he doesn't write
> code, does he? Do you really believe that a technical know-nothing like
> should open a 1000th and one site on how to manage Fedora? There are already
> too many!
> Developers, people like you, Rahul Sundaran, Adam Williamson, etc. are well
> aware that Fedora has no direction set at the present time. (Please, Rahul,
> don't argue... I could reply) In the new Linux world, it's headed nowhere.
> You defend Fedora and Red Hat with all kind of arguments that you know don't
> stand up, because you think that defending Red Hat whatever happens is the
> way to go.
> I DON'T THINK SO. I think it's better to face reality. Developers certainly
> have a better insiders' view than me. I KNOW far from all agree with the
> direction Fedora is taking. I believe you should get together and voice your
> concerns openly. And I believe what I'm writing here could be a good start
> for reflection. Believe it or not, Mr kernel maintainer, I believe I'm
> contributing right here, now. Did Schmidt ever write a line of code?
>> > Your buzz off answer won't solve this kind of problem. It never has and
>> > never will. If your spirit is the kind that rules at Red Hat, no doubt
>> Red
>> > Hat is doomed.
>> As I said I don't work for Red Hat. I don't work on any Red Hat product
>> either.
>> You seem to be very confused about what Fedora is. The Fedora mission
>> statement isn't 'blow Microsoft out of the water' nor is it 'world
>> domination' nor 'end user product'. If that is what you are looking for
>> you are - as you've been told many times - in the wrong place.
> What is Fedora's mission? Despite all its successes, in the long run, it's
> clear to me it is headed for failure. Let's wait and see, you will say. No,
> this is notpossible. If you don't see forward what the great picture will be
> in 5 to 10 years, you're failing. Today.
> --
> users mailing list
> users at
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> Guidelines:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the users mailing list