Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
Hi Marc, 2010/12/3 Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com Le 2010-12-02 11:27, Sigrid Carrera a écrit : Why ship an installer, when it is preferred to use the package manager from your Linux distribution? For Mandriva (on the console) do the following: - go to the directory that has all the rpm packages - su - (enter password) - urpmi *.rpm That installs all packages in the necessary order, you don't have to do anything else. As alternative, it should also be possible to use the gui: (I did not test this, but it should be easily doable) - Use konqueror / nautilus / dolphin or any other file manager, change into the folder, that has all your rpms you want to install - Mark all the files you want to install - Do a right click and choose Open with Software installer - Enter your root password in the popup - Installation should be done automatically. [...] Sigrid I had actually not installed any of the language packs as I just assumed that they would work. But now that I am trying to add them I downloaded the appropriate packs of English UK and French, unpacked them and installed them. But the language don't show in the language setting in the Tools-Options. They are all for 64-bit version. Do you have a 64-bit system? 32-bit versions can be found here: http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/testing/3.3.0-beta3/rpm/x86/ http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/testing/3.3.0-beta3/rpm/x86/64-bit versions are here: http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/testing/3.3.0-beta3/rpm/x86_64/ I don't expect a 64-bit version to work on a 32-bit system. After you installed the language packs, you should be able to go to Tools Options Language Settings Languages and select there the language for your software interface, and the locale setting that suit you best (affects the decimal delimiter and default currency in Calc). The spellcheck should then also work for the selected language. That those things can take effect, you have to close LibO (including the quickstarter - if you use it) and start LibO again. Did you try this? Sigrid -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
I see several issues in the discussion about installers - and I only just joined the list! Let's list 'em... 1. You are assuming everyone will be running Linux. They won't. 2. You assume they all have a packaged Linux distro. They won't. 3. You presume they can all grab tar's themselves. They can't. 4. You assume they will all download the package. They won't. Installers are needed because (1) you can adapt an installer to manage installation on all the systems people *will* be using, such as Windows XP, Vista, Win7 and - for some - either 32-bit or 64-bit versions; Linux using Debian-based or other installers and (2) those who have no standard installer system included; Android users and even Apple users (3) who want something that installs like an app does; even, despite the undoubted acrimony, Solaris users. Finally (4), there will be those users who buy a preconfigured or even standard virtualised system from a supplier and want both the supplier provided system and the discs to fix any problems - and for that you want a packaged product with installer and repair system to put on disc. While an installer may not be the top priority, it is undoubtedly a very important feature that needs to be present to reach the widest number of users. Mark On 03/12/2010 04:13, Sophie Gautier wrote: For years I only had a connexion in cyber cafes, so I dowloaded the tars on an external device (or sometimes several) and installed at home on my computer. I don't see what you're talking about, your distro has all what you need to install the downloaded archives and manage dependencies. The only issue that I see still existing currently is the size of the download. When you have a very slow and expensive connexion, it makes LibO very difficult to get and distribute. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
- Original Message From: Mark Preston m...@mpreston.demon.co.uk To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 12:18:16 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package. I see several issues in the discussion about installers - and I only just joined the list! Let's list 'em... 1. You are assuming everyone will be running Linux. They won't. 2. You assume they all have a packaged Linux distro. They won't. Only the latest discussion has focused around Linux. It hasn't been the only OS discussed or assumed. 3. You presume they can all grab tar's themselves. They can't. 4. You assume they will all download the package. They won't. That should always be an option, regardless of whether people avail themselves of it. Installers are needed because (1) you can adapt an installer to manage installation on all the systems people *will* be using, such as Windows XP, Vista, Win7 and - for some - either 32-bit or 64-bit versions; Linux using Debian-based or other installers and (2) those who have no standard installer system included; Android users and even Apple users (3) who want something that installs like an app does; even, despite the undoubted acrimony, Solaris users. Finally (4), there will be those users who buy a preconfigured or even standard virtualised system from a supplier and want both the supplier provided system and the discs to fix any problems - and for that you want a packaged product with installer and repair system to put on disc. While an installer may not be the top priority, it is undoubtedly a very important feature that needs to be present to reach the widest number of users. An Installer only helps on Windows. Solaris has a packaging system; nearly all Unixes have a packaging system. Linux Distros have their own packaging systems. Fortunately, TDF/LO can focus on providing 3 Linux packages: debian, rpm, slackware, source tarball Nearly every Linux distro will provide its own package according to its own packaging system; but those above will meet everyone else. Most non-Developer Linux Users only install what is in or is compatible with the packaging system their distro uses. Mac also has a packaging system which is pretty much a zip file with all the relevant files contained therein. (Not really, that's just a good simplified description.) All Mac targeted software is installed that way - the exception likely being the OS and its relations (e.g. drivers). That is simply the Mac-way and Mac users will expect that. iOS and Android are not being targetted (from what I can tell) and LO/OOo would be far too big for them right now any how. They also each have a standard method of installation - the AppStore and Android MarketPlace. So again, no separate installer is necessary there. So, really the _only_ platform an installer is really necessary on is Windows, which is the _only_ platform without a standard packaging system or installation method. Yes, Windows has the Microsoft Windows Installer System (MSI files), but it's still never had a standard installation method. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
Hi Marc, 2010/12/2 Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com Le 2010-12-02 02:29, Jean-Baptiste Faure a écrit : Although a good idea, I would still like to see an installer do this rather than the language pack. Hmm, on MS-Windows language packs are installed by an installer in the same way as the core application. The difference is that this installer is localized. There is nothing to add in the language packs, only to modify them in order they are able to drive the installer of the core application. Best regards JBF Ah .. I am just looking at the language packs for linux distributions. Could anyone on the list explain how users install language packs on LO (I'm using the .rpm version as reference point here). It looks like they come in a .tar.gz file and when uncompressed a folder is created with a lot of .rpm files. There doesn't seem to be an installer that comes along with them and the user is left to use console to install. It this right? Why ship an installer, when it is preferred to use the package manager from your Linux distribution? For Mandriva (on the console) do the following: - go to the directory that has all the rpm packages - su - (enter password) - urpmi *.rpm That installs all packages in the necessary order, you don't have to do anything else. As alternative, it should also be possible to use the gui: (I did not test this, but it should be easily doable) - Use konqueror / nautilus / dolphin or any other file manager, change into the folder, that has all your rpms you want to install - Mark all the files you want to install - Do a right click and choose Open with Software installer - Enter your root password in the popup - Installation should be done automatically. [...] Sigrid -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
NoOp wrote: On 11/30/2010 02:43 AM, plino wrote: The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and only English, Spanish and French dictionaries). Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb??? The current packages (including in the smallest option 56 language packs!!!) makes no sense IMO as I mentioned in this post http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html I think that an English only version of LibreOffice and then separate Language Packs (10-40Mb) which include the translation for the interface and dictionaries, spelling, etc is the best option. Actually the point that I was trying to make, but apparently you've snipped all (including attribution as to who you were replying to) is this: Those that think including additional bits such as documentation in any initial download need to consider the impact of both the user and the download method. The current download (as has been explained in other threads) is large due to the added language add-on's. No worries, as the LO is still beta. However my post was to remind others that downloading an application such as LO is very much an issue. Whether the download be 100Mb or 300Mb, the result is large for dial-up users. Another post indicated that dialup users are used to large downloads let them run overnight. Fair enough... but it's obvious that that poster doesn't use dialup. It's analogous to assuming that all users have DVD readers... I test multiple OS's, multiple open-source programs, and I just checked; out of 10 systems that I have running, only 4 have DVD readers, 2 have DVD r/w, and all exept one have floppy drives. BTW: I live and work in Silicon Valley. My opinion is to *not* add documentation to the inital download. Instead reduce the initial download as much as possible, and improve the Help section to ensure it is correct, and to instruct and or point a new user additional documentation. I simply MUST disagree for one simple reason, I just don't think that there should be one single take-it-or-leave-it download package! there must be a choice of packages, one without anything extra, and ALSO others with certain amounts of extras added. That way you could find a package that is right for your needs and your download capability. NoOp, it sounds like a lot of your computers are almost antiques. I tossed the last of my floppy disks in the trash a couple of months ago. I am a retired system builder, and I now am down to just 2 computers, (from about a dozen at one point) my tower which I built, Athlon 64 bit dual core, SATA HD and DVD burner, and my Toshiba laptop, also Athlon 64 bit dual core, 320 gig HD and DVD burner. I remember that optical disks started to replace floppies in about 1995 because Win-95 came either way. Win-98 was CD only. I will admit that DVD burners didn't become affordable until about 2005, but most of what I built in 2000 through 2004 had either a CD burner and a DVD read only, or from 2003 on combo drives, CD burn, DVD read only. But my point here is that 2004 and older machines are horribly obsolete today, and the vast majority of them have been scrapped! Also most of these old clunkers are only found in the more technologically advanced countries, because the 3rd world countries didn't start to get computers in any significant numbers until after the time of the old floppy based machines. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
On fim 2.des 2010 15:58, skrifaði Marc Paré: - Ah .. I am just looking at the language packs for linux distributions. Could anyone on the list explain how users install language packs on LO (I'm using the .rpm version as reference point here). It looks like they come in a .tar.gz file and when uncompressed a folder is created with a lot of .rpm files. There doesn't seem to be an installer that comes along with them and the user is left to use console to install. It this right? So, if this is the case, we would then have to a common installer where the user would identify the language pack(s) needed. It doesn't look like the language pack installers would be a good place as the language installation methods are different from one OS to the other. Does this make sense? Well, that depends on what you define as an 'user'. 'Normal Linux users' (as of today = *buntu/Mint etc) use their respective package managers to set up software. Developers should be capable to pull their nightly dose directly from git, the users in question (which are likely to install LibreOffice from those packages) are either adventurous or participating as translators/QA or such. Even for translation/QA/testing users, offering repositories could be an easier way to go and probably less resource-hogging. Of course it would be easiest if there was one metapackage/script for installing the repo and the chosen language packs. OpenSuse has an 'One Click Install' system on their web, which is just a simple script witch initiates the PM with information about the repository in question. Centralised PM's have become the 'Linux-way', picking up packages in various places on the web is so 'passé'... ;-) Just thoughts, Sveinn í Felli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
- Original Message From: Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com I remember that optical disks started to replace floppies in about 1995 because Win-95 came either way. Win-98 was CD only. I will admit that DVD burners didn't become affordable until about 2005, but most of what I built in 2000 through 2004 had either a CD burner and a DVD read only, or from 2003 on combo drives, CD burn, DVD read only. But my point here is that 2004 and older machines are horribly obsolete today, and the vast majority of them have been scrapped! Also most of these old clunkers are only found in the more technologically advanced countries, because the 3rd world countries didn't start to get computers in any significant numbers until after the time of the old floppy based machines. FYI - there are a lot of organizations that take any computer they can - regardless of age - and refurb it and ship it to 3rd world countries so that some people can simply _have_ a computer. Doesn't matter that it's 10 or 15 years old - as long as it runs and runs well. They'll find a configuration that will run on it. Granted, most of such computer do meet the trash can; but they are out there and should not be discounted. $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
On 12/02/2010 10:27 AM, Sigrid Carrera wrote: Hi Marc, 2010/12/2 Marc Parém...@marcpare.com Le 2010-12-02 02:29, Jean-Baptiste Faure a écrit : Although a good idea, I would still like to see an installer do this rather than the language pack. Hmm, on MS-Windows language packs are installed by an installer in the same way as the core application. The difference is that this installer is localized. There is nothing to add in the language packs, only to modify them in order they are able to drive the installer of the core application. Best regards JBF Ah .. I am just looking at the language packs for linux distributions. Could anyone on the list explain how users install language packs on LO (I'm using the .rpm version as reference point here). It looks like they come in a .tar.gz file and when uncompressed a folder is created with a lot of .rpm files. There doesn't seem to be an installer that comes along with them and the user is left to use console to install. It this right? Why ship an installer, when it is preferred to use the package manager from your Linux distribution? For Mandriva (on the console) do the following: - go to the directory that has all the rpm packages - su - (enter password) - urpmi *.rpm That installs all packages in the necessary order, you don't have to do anything else. As alternative, it should also be possible to use the gui: (I did not test this, but it should be easily doable) - Use konqueror / nautilus / dolphin or any other file manager, change into the folder, that has all your rpms you want to install - Mark all the files you want to install - Do a right click and choose Open with Software installer - Enter your root password in the popup - Installation should be done automatically. [...] Sigrid I think an installer is important because not everyone is on the internet. It would be great for these people to be able to grab the installer at the library, bring it home and install. I was in this situation for a while:-( and found it disappointing and disgusting when projects didn't offer single installers for Linux:-) $0.02 -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
Hi, Le 30/11/2010 23:13, Dr. Bernhard Dippold a écrit : Hi Carl, Leif , all Carl Symons wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM, leif leiflod...@gmail.com wrote: Den 30-11-2010 11:43, plino skrev: The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and only English, Spanish and French dictionaries). Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb??? Agree. This is a problem I think that an English only version of LibreOffice and then separate Language Packs (10-40Mb) which include the translation for the interface and dictionaries, spelling, etc is the best option. No no no no no no! If you think all people on this planet are native English speaking you are wrong. Please. We have discussed this so many times that I don't believe we still are. English installer + native lang-pack is a no-go! At least if this combination is the only one we offer. Non-English speaking people need installers in their own language. Yes of course. Is there any chance that the installer could be in the lang pack instead of in the core application ? The user would download the pack lang in his prefered language and install it. So the installer asks the user the permission to download or to provide the path to the main application and, when it's done, install it using localized dialogs. Best regards JBF -- Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
Le 01/12/2010 23:42, Marc Paré a écrit : Le 2010-12-01 17:29, Jean-Baptiste Faure a écrit : Hi, Le 30/11/2010 23:13, Dr. Bernhard Dippold a écrit : [...] Non-English speaking people need installers in their own language. Yes of course. Is there any chance that the installer could be in the lang pack instead of in the core application ? The user would download the pack lang in his prefered language and install it. So the installer asks the user the permission to download or to provide the path to the main application and, when it's done, install it using localized dialogs. Best regards JBF I think that the language packs should remain unchanged as they are often downloaded to enhance people's installation. For example, on my OOo installations at home I have the regular Eng; UK Eng; French and Spanish language packs. The installer would have been downloaded 3 times for nothing as all I wanted was the language pack. The langpack installer can be smart: - LibO is already installed - the langpack adds itself to the available languages list and returns - LibO is not installed - the langpack downloads (if not provided) and installs the core application. JBF -- Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
On 2010-11-30 5:43 AM, plino wrote: The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and only English, Spanish and French dictionaries). Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb??? The current packages (including in the smallest option 56 language packs!!!) makes no sense IMO as I mentioned in this post http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html This has already been discussed, and it was stated that smaller more targeted installers will definitely happen, but right now disk space is the reason for a single large installer... Once more space is available, more download options will be made available... or at least thats the way I understood it... -- Best regards, Charles -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
On 11/30/2010 05:43 AM, plino wrote: The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and only English, Spanish and French dictionaries). Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb??? The current packages (including in the smallest option 56 language packs!!!) makes no sense IMO as I mentioned in this post http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html I think that an English only version of LibreOffice and then separate Language Packs (10-40Mb) which include the translation for the interface and dictionaries, spelling, etc is the best option. I agree. -- Thanks for your time, Nathan Heafner -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
How come other language packs aren't being offered separately from the main English installer? That way sizes are kept down in regards to downloading. I'm willing to set aside some space on my server to help out in that respect if need be for the language packs or otherwise. On 11/30/2010 05:39 PM, Nathan wrote: On 11/30/2010 05:43 AM, plino wrote: The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and only English, Spanish and French dictionaries). Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb??? The current packages (including in the smallest option 56 language packs!!!) makes no sense IMO as I mentioned in this post http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html I think that an English only version of LibreOffice and then separate Language Packs (10-40Mb) which include the translation for the interface and dictionaries, spelling, etc is the best option. I agree. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
NoOp wrote: On 11/26/2010 12:16 PM, Robert Derman wrote: Marc Paré wrote: ... Of these two options, I would prefer being offered the menu AFTER having downloaded the LO suite. The reason for this: some users may find that downloading the suite took a longer than the anticipated time and they would not have enough time/patience to download the additional items.On the other hand, if the LO suite had taken less anticipated time to download, the user may feel it right to download the extra items. Marc Here I really must disagree, I think pretty much everyone knows what sort of internet connection they have, and therefore if the downloadable packages are plainly labeled as to size in megabytes, (which they certainly should be) then they would know what sort of download time is involved. The only real variable here being if the download server is overloaded, and if you watch your download speeds you will know if that is the case. This is not targeted at Robert, but to all suggesting that bundled documentation downloads be considered. Keep in mind that one of the targets for OOo/LO et al is locations/countries/users that cannot, or do not, wish to pay for MS Office. Many of those are still on dialup (even in the USA). Its difficult to really offer any meaningful suggestions until we get beyond the beta stage but once we do, we should really do a better job than OOo ever did of making LO available on disk for all those people with only dial-up or no internet connection at all. I understand that right now due to a lack of server space the current download package is FAR too large. That problem will of course have to be solved. Once there is enough server space, we should offer a choice of download packages, as I have mentioned in previous emails. I know that virtually all computers made in the last few years have had DVD as opposed to CD optical drives installed. Actually I think it is 5-6 years now. What I am getting at with this is that the LO disk could be a DVD disk rather than a CD disk. Or at least it could be available on both kinds of disk. Anyway, the cost of DVD blanks is not significantly more than CD blanks, and a DVD would offer more than enough space for everything TDF has to offer. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM, leif leiflod...@gmail.com wrote: Den 30-11-2010 11:43, plino skrev: The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and only English, Spanish and French dictionaries). Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb??? Agree. This is a problem I think that an English only version of LibreOffice and then separate Language Packs (10-40Mb) which include the translation for the interface and dictionaries, spelling, etc is the best option. No no no no no no! If you think all people on this planet are native English speaking you are wrong. Please. We have discussed this so many times that I don't believe we still are. English installer + native lang-pack is a no-go! Nobody said that everyone is native English speaking. I promise you that you speak English orders of magnitude better than I speak whatever your native language is. The problem is that there is a core of functionality that all languages can use, along with the need for application language localized to users - the more the merrier. English has become the lingua franca of the Web, whatever the cause and whatever the effect. If LibO ships in one language with optional language packs, then what language do you suggest? If LibO ships in all possible languages, then what do you suggest for people on a 56kbps connection? LibreOffice is an international project - not an English one that happens to be translated. /Leif Lodahl Representing 500.000 users who are *not* native English perhaps representing far fewer than that. You are probably not representing people who have no problem getting a fine program in whatever language along with a language packs in their own language. It's gonna be a challenge getting liftoff with the basic LibreOffice capability. Why take on changing a fundamental aspect of the Web in addition? IMO, this attitude will result in no LibreOffice and English still spoken on the Web. Carl -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
Marc Paré wrote: Le 2010-11-26 15:16, Robert Derman a écrit : Marc Paré wrote: Le 2010-11-25 14:44, Robert Derman a écrit : With all the discussion of the size of the download package and the difficulty of including things like manuals I suddenly realized that perhaps we are going about this thing entirely wrong! Perhaps what we should do is offer a CHOICE of several download packages, not just one take it or leave it package. A basic download package with just the core LO Office Suite, like what we have had up to now, and as an alternative, a Complete package including users manual(s), templates, extensions, clip art, fonts, anything else that should be in a complete package. Perhaps we could even offer a Writer Only package without Calc, Draw, Impress, Base, or Math, and with just a BRIEF users manual for Writer. I suspect that there may be many home users that just want a word processor and aren't at all interested in the rest of the suite. Different users have very different internet connections, some are still dial up. Some are DSL, and some are Cable and have huge bandwidth. Offering only a One-Size-Fits-All package may no longer be the best idea. Hi Robert: Yes this would be ideal. However, this would also impact our developers and add to their work. I, myself, would favour Barbara's suggestion of having a link offering the user the to download extra packages such as manuals. BTW ... I don't believe, at this point, that the downloading the LibreOffice into different modules (Writer, Impress, Calc etc) is possible. There has been talk of it but I believe this would require a rewrite of the code. Actually this would have NO significant impact on developers workload. It is a simple matter of creating a set of folders to download rather than a single one. I haven't used Linux for a while, (it was Lindows, or perhaps Freespire) anyway even with that, like with Windows, it is a simple matter of drag and drop. Each downloadable package should be very plainly labeled as to how many megabytes it contains. (also a listing of its contents) As far as a Writer only package, that naturally would have to wait until after a major rewrite of the code, which I understand from what I have read here on Discuss, is coming. Whether such an option is ever offered would probably depend on the results of a survey. Now I know that this would require more space on the download server, but in this day of 1 terabyte hard drives selling on the internet for $60.00 US dollars, that is probably not a big deal. Actually if I had to guess, it would be that 40% to 50% of users only ever use the Writer module and never use any of the rest of the suite. I myself am in that group. I am thinking that even for Writer only users there might be some that want a very minimal package, Just the core program and perhaps a very short manual, while others might want an extensive manual and lots of templates, extensions and clip art. I would have not problem with this. Sounds reasonable. How about if we had an installation where it offered the users these choices upfront and the same page of offerings would be offered in the Help menu. This would make it a familiar page both at the install stage and once the user familiarized herself/himself with the programme. We would have to find a way to advertise extensions and plugins so that users would be aware of their availability. Marc, I think we are essentially on the same page now. I should probably tell everyone a little about my experience so that you will understand my skill levels. I am a retired system builder. Over the years I have built about a thousand computers, all had M$ operating systems installed on them. I was one of those people who was slow to warm to Windows, I always thought that M$ didn't do nearly enough to improve DOS. I only ever built 1 machine with that piece of crap, Vista on it. I talked everyone else into having me install XP. I was never able to talk anyone into Linux. I did however install Linux on a bunch of donated machines that I refurbished for donation to non-profits. They all got Linspire or Freespire with built in OOo. And yes, Linspire and Freespire were actually easier to install than Win XP. I probably should also mention that once OOo became available, it pre-installed it on every computer I built. I got a lot of thank-yous for that! Now as to having a variety of download packages, all would have the exact same LO program suite. the only difference would be in the Extras packaged with it. these would probably all be in a separate sub folder. The Basic package would be only the LO Office Suite itself. Then there could be an intermediate package with a fairly brief manual, 200 pages, perhaps the top 10 of extensions and the top 20 templates, whatever, and a good selection of clip art. Then finally a Complete package with an extensive manual, all popular templates and extensions, and an extensive
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
Hi Robert, *, Robert Derman schrieb: [.. big snip ..] P.S. I hope we can find a company or group of volunteers that can make an LO package available on disk. Regarding ISO-files for burning disks: good news for You. We offered such ISO files for german language OpenOffice.org installer, templates, extentions, and additional software to equip an office box. We will also release an international/english version, but some time is needed to set this up. I think it should be possible to make it available for no more than 5 US dollars or equivalent including shipping. For those folks with NO internet connection, it would be best if we could get the disk into retail channels. For these people, if a software program is not available at retail, then it simply doesn't exist. With such an ISO probably You might be distributor and retailer of that disk for Your region? To get an impression of our box You can grab the current DVD iso file here (german, Bittorrent only): http://torrent.projects.ooodev.org:6969/torrents/LibreOffice_3.3.0-1_DVD_snapshot-20101112-22.25.13_libreoffice-box_allplatforms_libreofice-box_de.iso.torrent?info_hash=47dd3235a48b67860fe91b44ea7e0b83f925796f If You aren't afraid of german, download it, burn it (not as file, but by burn image.. ) and have a look. We built in a more easy to use windows installer realized through an on disk k-meleon browser. Gruß/regards -- Friedrich Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/ LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images (german version already started) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
Marc Paré wrote: Le 2010-11-25 14:44, Robert Derman a écrit : With all the discussion of the size of the download package and the difficulty of including things like manuals I suddenly realized that perhaps we are going about this thing entirely wrong! Perhaps what we should do is offer a CHOICE of several download packages, not just one take it or leave it package. A basic download package with just the core LO Office Suite, like what we have had up to now, and as an alternative, a Complete package including users manual(s), templates, extensions, clip art, fonts, anything else that should be in a complete package. Perhaps we could even offer a Writer Only package without Calc, Draw, Impress, Base, or Math, and with just a BRIEF users manual for Writer. I suspect that there may be many home users that just want a word processor and aren't at all interested in the rest of the suite. Different users have very different internet connections, some are still dial up. Some are DSL, and some are Cable and have huge bandwidth. Offering only a One-Size-Fits-All package may no longer be the best idea. Hi Robert: Yes this would be ideal. However, this would also impact our developers and add to their work. I, myself, would favour Barbara's suggestion of having a link offering the user the to download extra packages such as manuals. BTW ... I don't believe, at this point, that the downloading the LibreOffice into different modules (Writer, Impress, Calc etc) is possible. There has been talk of it but I believe this would require a rewrite of the code. Actually this would have NO significant impact on developers workload. It is a simple matter of creating a set of folders to download rather than a single one. I haven't used Linux for a while, (it was Lindows, or perhaps Freespire) anyway even with that, like with Windows, it is a simple matter of drag and drop. Each downloadable package should be very plainly labeled as to how many megabytes it contains. (also a listing of its contents) As far as a Writer only package, that naturally would have to wait until after a major rewrite of the code, which I understand from what I have read here on Discuss, is coming. Whether such an option is ever offered would probably depend on the results of a survey. Now I know that this would require more space on the download server, but in this day of 1 terabyte hard drives selling on the internet for $60.00 US dollars, that is probably not a big deal. Actually if I had to guess, it would be that 40% to 50% of users only ever use the Writer module and never use any of the rest of the suite. I myself am in that group. I am thinking that even for Writer only users there might be some that want a very minimal package, Just the core program and perhaps a very short manual, while others might want an extensive manual and lots of templates, extensions and clip art. There could be a downloading on-site menu PRIOR to downloading the suite offering extra downloadable options or a menu in the installation routine (AFTER downloading the suite) that would offer you a choice of downloading extra items such as the manual. Of these two options, I would prefer being offered the menu AFTER having downloaded the LO suite. The reason for this: some users may find that downloading the suite took a longer than the anticipated time and they would not have enough time/patience to download the additional items.On the other hand, if the LO suite had taken less anticipated time to download, the user may feel it right to download the extra items. Marc Here I really must disagree, I think pretty much everyone knows what sort of internet connection they have, and therefore if the downloadable packages are plainly labeled as to size in megabytes, (which they certainly should be) then they would know what sort of download time is involved. The only real variable here being if the download server is overloaded, and if you watch your download speeds you will know if that is the case. There should probably be a couple of download packages offered for those that downloaded a basic package and later wished that they had downloaded more. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
On 11/25/2010 07:27 PM, Marc Paré wrote: Hi Robert: Yes this would be ideal. However, this would also impact our developers and add to their work. I, myself, would favour Barbara's suggestion of having a link offering the user the to download extra packages such as manuals. BTW ... I don't believe, at this point, that the downloading the LibreOffice into different modules (Writer, Impress, Calc etc) is possible. There has been talk of it but I believe this would require a rewrite of the code. There could be a downloading on-site menu PRIOR to downloading the suite offering extra downloadable options or a menu in the installation routine (AFTER downloading the suite) that would offer you a choice of downloading extra items such as the manual. Of these two options, I would prefer being offered the menu AFTER having downloaded the LO suite. The reason for this: some users may find that downloading the suite took a longer than the anticipated time and they would not have enough time/patience to download the additional items.On the other hand, if the LO suite had taken less anticipated time to download, the user may feel it right to download the extra items. Marc Marc, May I suggest that, in addition to such a link being in the installation, itself, that it also be available under Help or some such for those who don't want it immediately, but might want it later on? It would simply be a minor additional courtesy for those who wanted to see what the software could do on its own before adding to it. Craig Tyche -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
