"Marc Paré" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Le 2010-11-23 12:33, Nathan a écrit :
On 11/23/2010 05:37 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
Marc Paré schrieb:
[...] IMO, the user
should always be left in control of the extensions. If they are so
necessary, then they should be coded in and not be called extensions.
+1
I have a non removable Zulu hyphenation dictionary from 2008, but no
Help.
Rainer
This isnt practical with the user base we service. Each user has
different expectations and needs from LibO, there for each user may need
different plugins, extensions, templates, etc etc. This is giving the
user true control and choice. With that said, the popularity of plugins
in itself(automatic installation, removal, and updating) will be
beneficial to LibO in the general scheme of things.
Agreed.
But then there needs to be
- a *proper* management system so that one's extensions are not blown away
by new versions
- a *proper* scheme for notifying a user when a new [sub-[sub-]... version
of LO invalidates an extension
- a scheme whereby a user can easily remove *any* extension, even those that
came *in the box" with LO
- a scheme whereby a user can easily re-install *any* extension that came
*in the box* with LO and was removed by the above scheme.
- a *proper* scheme whereby users can request notification of upgrades to
*individual* extensions
My main "relationship" with extensions has come from using Firefox. Yes,
extensions are great but it is nevertheless extremely frustrating when an
upgrade to FF comes along that invalidates an extension one has been relying
on for quite a while. LO really must try to avoid this if it is to rely on
extensions in the future.
The same points apply to templates, plugins etc.
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
