View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
sardisson Town Crier
Joined: Feb 01, 2004 Posts: 4588
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 5:27 pm Post subject: Now I understand... |
|
the godawful new OOo 2 icons: http://www.sun.com/
It seems like everything everywhere is getting hit by the ugly stick these days (except Neo, which keeps making steps in the opposite direction )
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aussie149 The Merovingian
Joined: Feb 12, 2005 Posts: 607 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 8:20 pm Post subject: OOo 2 icons |
|
Where are they? I couldn't find them, then I got lost in the StarOffice site lookign foir free education templates which don't seemt to be there. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sardisson Town Crier
Joined: Feb 01, 2004 Posts: 4588
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
They show up in some of the launcher apps included with some of the 1.9.xx builds; the app icon looks exactly like the favicon on www.sun.com (minus the word "Sun"). The whole grey wavy theme is definitely not 2005.
Smokey
(Oooh, it looks like Ed fixed the stylesheet so links are underlined at all times now, not just when hovering! ) _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjmckenzie51 The Anomaly
Joined: Apr 01, 2005 Posts: 1055 Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
sardisson wrote: | They show up in some of the launcher apps included with some of the 1.9.xx builds; the app icon looks exactly like the favicon on www.sun.com (minus the word "Sun"). The whole grey wavy theme is definitely not 2005. |
Sounds 'ugly'....And I feel that you are correct, definately not 2005...
sardisson wrote: |
(Oooh, it looks like Ed fixed the stylesheet so links are underlined at all times now, not just when hovering! ) |
Yep. Thanks Ed. And I am going to work on a document on how to build NeoOffice/J. I just found a couple of 'things' on the OpenOffice build web pages that should be completed before starting.
James |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ovvldc Captain Naiobi
Joined: Sep 13, 2004 Posts: 2352 Location: Zürich, CH
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
jjmckenzie51 wrote: | And I am going to work on a document on how to build NeoOffice/J. I just found a couple of 'things' on the OpenOffice build web pages that should be completed before starting. |
So you got Neo to build, then? Or still searching for a few more things?
Good luck, we all appreciate your tenacity and resolve.
-Oz _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjmckenzie51 The Anomaly
Joined: Apr 01, 2005 Posts: 1055 Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
ovvldc wrote: | jjmckenzie51 wrote: | And I am going to work on a document on how to build NeoOffice/J. I just found a couple of 'things' on the OpenOffice build web pages that should be completed before starting. |
So you got Neo to build, then? Or still searching for a few more things?
Good luck, we all appreciate your tenacity and resolve. |
Not yet, but I did find the 'notes' on the OpenOffice.org site for building OOo-X11 (Thanks, Ed.) I downloaded the two additional files from the appropriate web sites and installed one of them, which may remove the error that I received. A build document should be a sole source document and not (and I mean NOT) refer to other web pages unless this is totally necessary (I have many years of dealing with programming and documentation.)
In any case, I'm not knocking Patrick or Ed. This appears to be a problem at OpenOffice.org. I had to search over ten web pages to get all of the information to even start to build OOo-X11 1.1.4. And it appears that the block on OOo 2.0 will be OOo itself, not NeoOffice/J.
James |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|