64-bit AOO for Windows (was RE: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies)

scetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 14:14 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies > > On 01/11/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > > 1. We don't have a Win64 version of AOO available for downloa

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

Am 03.11.2015 um 01:23 schrieb Patricia Shanahan: > I have no idea of the frequency of that situation. > Hi, On the user forum it occurs several times per month. The list box of availlable JREs should not include 64-bit JREs. It should have a label such as "Suitable 32-bit Java Runtimes on

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On 01/11/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote: 1. We don't have a Win64 version of AOO available for download. This has never been a major request from our users, and also technically speaking the benefits a user would gain by running a 64-bit version are not so big. Sure, it look modern and it is

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On 10/29/2015 02:22 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 10/29/2015 12:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> >> wrote: > ... >>> Three paths come to mind. >>> >>> A. Remove the Java dependencies. >>> >> >> Impossible. JDBC

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

The argument for Win64 is that there may be many people who know and care little about Java, but have it already installed for reasons other than AOO. Those installations are much more likely to be Win64 than x86. Because AOO is x86 only it has to ask for an x86 JRE, even if there is a

RE: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

ubject: Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies [ ... ] > > To summarise, users are beaten through a gauntlet of serious usability > problems when Java isn't successfully configured: > 1. We don't have a Win64 version of AOO available for download. > 2. The Win32 vers

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:14 PM, C Säger wrote: > Hi, > > Please load the following screen shot: > > http://www.mediafire.com/view/sqwigulqh8yfziu/JavaOptionsWin64.png > > The screenshot shows the Java options for a Win64 system with a 64-bit > Java highlighted (C:\Program

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

Just to note some things related to a Win64 port: - In order to support win64 builds we would have to add a win64 bridge which we currently don’t have. The process is similar to porting to a new architecture: mail archives should have a message from Tor Lillquist who did the LibreOffice port

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

m...@apache.org] > > Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 09:22 > > To: Apache OO <dev@openoffice.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies > [ ... ] > > > > To summarise, users are beaten through a gauntlet of serious usabili

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > Just to note some things related to a Win64 port: > > - In order to support win64 builds we would have to add a win64 bridge > which we currently don’t have. The process is similar to porting to a new > architecture: mail

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 10/29/2015 12:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> wrote: >> > ... > >> Three paths come to mind. >>> >>> A. Remove the Java dependencies. >>>

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:44:52 -0700 "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > The Java dependency problem keeps coming up buried in other threads. I am > redirecting the most recent case so we can put light on this situation. > > Before the dependencies on Java are increased/improved, I

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

One more factor to consider is that the official Java installer promoted by Oracle tries really hard to trick the end-user into installing adware/spyware at the same time. We used to avoid this in the Sun installer by bundling Java, but having it as an external dependency for new AOO users means

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

Would you confirm that, about the adware/spyware tricks? If confirmed, that would definitely interest me. Perhaps it's just my obliviousness or rapidly fading memory, but I don't recall ever seeing a trap on Oracle's Java download trying to install adware/spyware.

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

In that case, the basic program should definitely be in Java, to avoid buffer overflows, undefined operations, and pointer arithmetic. The Java security issues are associated with attempts to run untrusted code in various controlled environments. That includes applets, as well as well as

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

See, for example, http://superuser.com/questions/549028/how-can-i-prevent-ask-com-toolbar-from-being-installed-every-time-java-is-update I just did a simple default install of the current JRE, and it did not offer Ask.com, so maybe Oracle has seen the error of their ways. On 10/29/2015 11:57

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

For AOO to achieve its full potential it must be possible to use it while assuming "Java" refers to an island one of whose exports is coffee beans. However, in normal home and office environments, the people doing installation are often more technically knowledgeable, and more likely to RTFM

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > The Java dependency problem keeps coming up buried in other threads. I am > redirecting the most recent case so we can put light on this situation. > > Before the dependencies on Java are increased/improved, I think

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On 10/29/2015 12:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: ... Three paths come to mind. A. Remove the Java dependencies. Impossible. JDBC drivers for example, are the lifeblood of Base. It depends on what you mean by

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

On 10/29/2015 07:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> Three paths come to mind. >> A. Remove the Java dependencies. > Impossible. JDBC drivers for example, are the lifeblood of Base. FWIW, the hardest, to the point of being impossible to replace, is the stuff that a11y tools rely on. jonathon

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

I checked my Java Control Panel and I have "Suppress sponsor offers when installing or updating Java" checked, so my install experience is not useful information. I don't remember checking it, but it would be a no-brainer first time I saw it in the control panel, considering how I feel about

Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

Thank you, to both of you, for the confirmation and the linked references. Greg On 10/29/2015 1:07 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: It's not just third-party reports like the one both you and I have cited. Oracle also documents its installation of adware/spyware with Java:

[QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies

The Java dependency problem keeps coming up buried in other threads. I am redirecting the most recent case so we can put light on this situation. Before the dependencies on Java are increased/improved, I think there is a crucial usability matter. 1. Currently users are trap-doored by