[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[NoOp]

On 12/02/2010 11:57 AM, BRM wrote:
> - Original Message 
> 
>> From: Robert Derman 
>> 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.

:-) All of my systems, with the exception of my laptop, came from
organisations (schools, businesses, etc) that were told that they needed
to upgrade their hardware to run the latest & greatest WinXYZ OS. A
little cleanup, add some memory & on occasion a larger hard drive, load
linux, done. My old "obsoletes" run just fine & in many cases run
considerably better than out-of-the-box low level system. Most are
2.4Ghz/1-4Gib. Only issue is that the price of old memory can sometimes
be prohibitive.

As for shipping to 3rd world countries... I take at least 2-3 recycled
systems each year & give them to local students/families that can't
afford a system. Of course I also include OOo & will include LO once
stable. No need to ship to 3rd world countries... there are plenty of
kids/families/senior centers, etc., (and I live in a pretty wealthy
area) local that are happy to get them.



-- 
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.

[BRM]

- Original Message 

> From: Mark Preston 
> 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.

[Mark Preston]

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.

[Sigrid Carrera]

Hi Marc,

2010/12/3 Marc Paré 

> 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/

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.

[Sophie Gautier]

On 03/12/2010 05:48, Sonic4Spuds wrote:

On 12/02/2010 10:27 AM, Sigrid Carrera wrote:

Hi Marc,

2010/12/2 Marc Paré


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:-)


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.


Kind regards
Sophie


--
Founding member of The Document Foundation


--
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.

[Sonic4Spuds]

On 12/02/2010 10:27 AM, Sigrid Carrera wrote:

Hi Marc,

2010/12/2 Marc Paré


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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

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.


Are these disabled? Am I missing something?

Marc


--
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-12-02 13:08, Sveinn í Felli a écrit :



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




Thanks Sveinn and Sigrid

Sorry about that. Of course the PM is the way to go with Linux boxes. I 
just had one of those moments. :-)


Marc


--
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.

[BRM]

- Original Message 

> From: Robert Derman 
> 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.

[Sveinn í Felli]

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.

[Robert Derman]

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.

[Sigrid Carrera]

Hi Marc,

2010/12/2 Marc Paré 

> 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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-12-02 07:05, plino a écrit :
>
> NoOp, I think we agree on the minimal installer size.
>
> I apologize for the reply mess. I'm not used to this mailing list tool. If I
> reply via nabble, I can't quote. If I reply via Gmail, I can't quote but the
> reference to whom the reply was doesn't work...
>
> It is clear that the huge installer is temporary but a smaller installer
> plus all language packs takes less than 2Gb, which seems negligible...
>
> It would be nice to have some feedback from the developers on which path
> they are following (I know this isn't the dev mailing list...)
>
> Please someone setup a proper Forum ASAP ;)

Hi Plino:

If you are suggesting a forum for the developers, I don't this there is 
one. There is a mailing list: 
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice  that is 
listed on the LibreOffice page: http://www.documentfoundation.org/develop/

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a developer on this list.

Marc



-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

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?

If this is the case, I can see why you (Jean-Baptiste) and I had 
different opinions as the installation process is different from the Win 
and Linux platforms. I imagine that this is also the case with the Apple 
platform.

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?

Salut!

Marc



-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[plino]

NoOp, I think we agree on the minimal installer size.

I apologize for the reply mess. I'm not used to this mailing list tool. If I
reply via nabble, I can't quote. If I reply via Gmail, I can't quote but the
reference to whom the reply was doesn't work...

It is clear that the huge installer is temporary but a smaller installer
plus all language packs takes less than 2Gb, which seems negligible...

It would be nice to have some feedback from the developers on which path
they are following (I know this isn't the dev mailing list...)

Please someone setup a proper Forum ASAP ;)
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p2005553.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
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.

[Jean-Baptiste Faure]

Le 02/12/2010 07:13, Marc Paré a écrit :
> Le 2010-12-01 18:09, Jean-Baptiste Faure a écrit :
>> 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
>>
> 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

-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-12-01 18:09, Jean-Baptiste Faure a écrit :
> 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
>

Although a good idea, I would still like to see an installer do this 
rather than the language pack. I would rather like the language packs 
left as what they are without adding to them. I particularly like 
Bernhard's proposal which to me accomplishes the same as you suggest but 
through an intelligent installer.

Marc



-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[NoOp]

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.



-- 
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.

[Jean-Baptiste Faure]

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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-12-01 17:29, Jean-Baptiste Faure a écrit :
> 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  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
>

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.

Marc



-- 
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.

[Jean-Baptiste Faure]

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  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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-30 17:13, Dr. Bernhard Dippold a écrit :

> At least if this combination is the only one we offer.
>
> Non-English speaking people need installers in their own language.
>
> Even if it is better to have an English installer with the ability to switch 
> later to
> the native language, the goal must be to provide every user with an 
> application
> she can install and use without language bariers.
>
> But for the sake of bandwidth, a modular installer might not only serve for 
> the
> points already mentioned by others.
>
> My idea would be a download manager and installer working together seamlessly:
>
> On download people should be asked for their language at first (or guessed 
> from
> the browser with the possibility to switch the download manager language).
>
> Then the download manager provides two options:
> - single step download of core application, language pack and main (5?) 
> extensions
> in the detected language and for the detected operating system.
> - customized download for different application and language packs, 
> extensions,
> templates, graphics and so on.
>
> Before downloading them, the selected modules are integrated in a single 
> packet
> that can be handled as a single file afterwards (self extraction or something 
> similar).
>
> In this packet an automatically generated file will be added
> containing the modules selected and downloaded.
>
> After downloading the package installation process can be started by clicking 
> on the
> package: The installer will pick the appropriate language from the content 
> file and start
> in this language. Installation of the core program will be done like today, 
> but the
> installer must be translated outside the program, so it can be replaced 
> easily.
>
> As a second step inside the installer the language pack will be installed 
> immediately
> afterwards. In this case the download is the smallest possible (core + 1 
> lang-pack),
> while the user will not perceive that there have been two downloads.
>
> She just starts LibreOffice in her language.
>
> Depending on the modules selected on download the installer allows to install 
> all of
> them at once or to choose the modules to be installed manually.
>
> In this way different  lang-packages can be integrated in the suite while 
> keeping the
> installer GUI in the user's native language.
>
> This idea would need some development skills to become a valid option for 
> LibreOffice.
>
> But I think it could be worth while. Perhaps others too?
> Could we find a developer interested in this area?
>
> Best regards
>
> Bernhard
>
> PS: I wanted to sketch a draft containing all the different options for 
> download and install
> I mentioned here. Unfortunately I can't use Draw to create this draft and 
> upload it because
> here at work there are several restrictions
>
>
>
This is an excellent idea/proposal and it makes so much sense. It would 
be worth your while to sketch a draft proposal. It would definitely be 
interesting for the native language groups.

Marc



-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[plino]

You are right. I didn't express myself correctly.

This is what I'm suggesting

http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html

"the first screen for the installer is simply a language selector (such as
the pidgin installer, and many others) so that the installer itself runs in
the user's language"

BTW I'm Portuguese :)

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1995615.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Dr. Bernhard Dippold]

Hi Carl, Leif , all

Carl Symons wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM, leif  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.

Even if it is better to have an English installer with the ability to switch 
later to
the native language, the goal must be to provide every user with an application 
she can install and use without language bariers.

But for the sake of bandwidth, a modular installer might not only serve for the 
points already mentioned by others. 

My idea would be a download manager and installer working together seamlessly:

On download people should be asked for their language at first (or guessed from 
the browser with the possibility to switch the download manager language).

Then the download manager provides two options: 
- single step download of core application, language pack and main (5?) 
extensions
in the detected language and for the detected operating system.
- customized download for different application and language packs, extensions, 
templates, graphics and so on.

Before downloading them, the selected modules are integrated in a single packet 
that can be handled as a single file afterwards (self extraction or something 
similar).

In this packet an automatically generated file will be added
containing the modules selected and downloaded.

After downloading the package installation process can be started by clicking 
on the 
package: The installer will pick the appropriate language from the content file 
and start 
in this language. Installation of the core program will be done like today, but 
the
installer must be translated outside the program, so it can be replaced easily.

As a second step inside the installer the language pack will be installed 
immediately 
afterwards. In this case the download is the smallest possible (core + 1 
lang-pack),
while the user will not perceive that there have been two downloads.

She just starts LibreOffice in her language.

Depending on the modules selected on download the installer allows to install 
all of
them at once or to choose the modules to be installed manually.

In this way different  lang-packages can be integrated in the suite while 
keeping the 
installer GUI in the user's native language.

This idea would need some development skills to become a valid option for 
LibreOffice.

But I think it could be worth while. Perhaps others too?
Could we find a developer interested in this area?

Best regards

Bernhard

PS: I wanted to sketch a draft containing all the different options for 
download and install
I mentioned here. Unfortunately I can't use Draw to create this draft and 
upload it because 
here at work there are several restrictions  





-- 
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.

[Carl Symons]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM, leif  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.

[leif]

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!

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






-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-30 13:44, Robert Derman a écrit :


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.



The trend is to actually no longer offer a CD or DVD drive. The DVD 
drives are also slowly disappearing. I was a whitebox dealer for a while 
and my stock whiteboxes were not sold with DVD drives. These were sold 
as extras.


However, this does not in any way help our dial-up modem membership. Our 
communities should help out in creating disk in their localities to help 
this group.


Marc



--
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.

[Robert Derman]

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.

[Jonathan Aquilina]

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.

[Nathan]

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.

[Charles Marcus]

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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[plino]

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.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1991949.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[NoOp]

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).

Try this; set your download manager to dialup speeds and go here:
http://www.documentfoundation.org/download/
Now click on the Windows download. Let us know when you are finished...
If you are on linux and have broadband, just use wget or (easier) gwget
with the appropriate bandwidth limit settings.


LibO_3.3.0_Win_x86_install_multi.exe16-Nov-2010 11:08   300MDetails

Now add to that documentation...

Don't cheat; set your download manager to dialup speeds - 56Kbps is OK :-)








-- 
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.

[nathan nolast]

why cant the languages be automatically chosen when downloaded, if you are
viewing the web page in English then the download would default to English
language pack and automatically select the correct OS. With the normal link
below saying "Other OS and languages" .. Split the languages packs out.

Include all popular templates and clip art, leave the rest for easy to
access built in menus (also accessible in the install menu) to download
"more stuff".

Anything left out of an install package in this effort for the most part
should be offered to be downloaded via a Internet connection during an
install.

I think, if you want to target the audience that have issues with
downloading large files, this for the most part also the same audience that
would know little about technology and may have issues understanding or
selecting the correct "version" to download. The best option, would be
providing options to obtain cd's, having the software available via local
retail chains, and creating relationships with manufacturers and computer
repair solutions for installations showing the benefit of Lib0 over M$
office and OOo. Also, there is a large US based government effort to expand
the access to Internet "broadband" ... and the speeds of Internet are
improving over time.  Something to keep in mind.

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Robert Derman  wrote:

> 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
>>

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Friedrich Strohmaier]

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.

[Robert Derman]

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 e

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

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.


Maybe at each install we could offer the user a "subscription" to a 
monthly "LibreOffice Magazine" that would highlight extensions and 
"What's New!" in the LibreOffice world.



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.




Yes, this is easily said when we are on a high speed connection. We need 
to remember, that we should always take into consideration our mem

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Robert Derman]

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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[plino]

May I suggest that the first screen for the installer is simply a language
selector (such as the pidgin installer, and many others) so that the
installer itself runs in the user's language

The installer itself should be as small as possible (it makes no sense that
27 dictionaries and 56 language packs are included in the smallest installer
for Windows, the multi) and the user can select from the list which language
modules to add (such as Abiword does) and download them during install.

Obviously the download page should have the Installer and links to the whole
list of language packs available (such as Abiword has for the dictionaries)
for those who

However there are two more points:

1) The language pack should include translation for the interface as well as
dictionaries, spelling, etc as MS Office currently does with it's MUI Packs

2) The More Dictionaries Online must link to a nice page like this
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/dictionaries
and not like this
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:OpenOfficeExtensions/List?lang=en-US
(this is probably a Beta problem)

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-25 21:38, Craig A. Eddy a écrit :



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



Hi Craig:

Absolutely good point. I just checked and this is offered in the 
LibreOffice Help->LibreOffice Help [F1] menu item. The download links 
are there.


Cheers

Marc


--
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.

[Craig A. Eddy]

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 ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

[Marc Paré]

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.


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


--
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 ***