On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am not changing anything. I don't think there is any such thing as > owning file names and it is too late to claim them now. And that doesn't > matter. What matters is the impact on users and on the cost of supporting > them with the present arrangement. > > - Dennis > > PS: I am also annoyed by the heavy-handed way that AOO 3.4.0 stomps on > existing file associations too. > no advance warning? asking politely? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 13:56 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Linux install issues > > Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: > > One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use > the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any > longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too. > > > I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should > change any names. > We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can potentially > break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries etc. > > So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what > depends in this... > > Juergen > > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01 > To: ooo-dev > Subject: Linux install issues > > Hi all-- > > It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems > with Linux > installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due > to the > way some vendors have installed LO. > > see: > > http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn > > > I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide: > > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html > > but I'm at a loss as to what this should say. > > I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and > well, still > at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old > OOo 3.3 is > a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to > handle some > of the LO overlap? > > Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about > installing AOO 3.4 on linux? > > * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install > LO? > * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then? > > Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro. > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > -- Mark Twain > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." -- Mark Twain
