Peter Reaper, 12/2/2005 16:40:
Asrail said on 12.02.2005 18:36:
Peter Reaper, 12/2/2005 11:23:
Every new version or snapshot of OOo creates a brand new profile. Why? I
have to redo all my settings and preferences every time.
I realize the snapshots are for testing, but still... :-(
Also, why does every version or snapshot of OOo create a separate installation directory (\OpenOffice.org 1.9.77\)?
At this stage (near 2.0), it seems OOo should be able to *update* the installation and profile data.
It shouldn't, as I said. It updates from one version to another, like from 1.1.3 to 1.1.4, but 1.9.74 and 1.9.77 are intended to be *the same* version.
"Developer builds" ... "same version". OK, I'll buy that.
No. It isn't beta yet. This "update" won't exist in a real instalation, i.e., the purpose is to verify if it creates a new profile without any kind of problem.
How about tsting if it can use/update an existing profile? Seems more relevant and less basic.
So at almost 2.0 OOo still isn't confident it can create a new profile reliably? Mozilla has been doing this since *way+ before even 1.0. This just confirms my impression that OOo has still not leaned the lessons mozilla has been demonstrating to the open source community, namely usability and simplicity for the *user*.
Update is a thing diferent, so may occur some bugs just because of it. Also it still chaanging a lot of things.
The installation folder should contain no settings files, so a simple deletion of all files in \OOo\ just before installation should suffice.
As far as the profile is concerned, there should be relatively few changes at this stage, and when they do occur, the programmer should be required to include a migration module. I have never even heard of this being a problem in 3+ years of mozilla development. :-\
Don't joke guy.
I can't help it sometimes, "guy". ;-)
When installing development versions of Mozilla they say to you uninstall the older version and delete the profile. One of the first smoke testes of Mozilla is *"to create a new profile"*.
That's what they say to CYA. In practice, it is virtually never necessary to create a new profile.
Also Mozilla, since the begin, changed more than once the way the profiles are created.
I can count on less than one hand how many times I've created a new mozilla profile.
They also changed the profiles folder.
Which IIRC was auto-migrated.
Mozilla says that you have to create new profiles when installing a major version, because may there to be incompatibilities. This happened with me while playing with firefox some time ago. After all, some plugins for firefox and mozilla don't work with your profile if it is so old.
The more reason to test OOo's profile update stability.
..."mozilla development"... How many nightly builds of Mozilla have you used in your life?
Literally *hundreds*!
Check my headers, look at the "User agent" info, do you see I am using a nightly build of Thunderbird?
Look at *my* user agent. My Thunderbird is a more recent one than yours, and I'm going to download a new trunk nightly tomorrow. :-P
(look at the data of release and look for the data of the last oficial release of TB).
Some of the nightly builds of TB I used were impratical to use because they hadn't a complete UI (when they changed it, it last something around a week)!
I've been using TB since shortly after it came out and have never considered it to be "impractical", even back then.
Do you use the 'development versions' of Mozilla and never noticed anything strange? Or do you wanna compare a development version with stable ones (like Mozilla 1.7.4 to 1.7.5)?
I use the nightlies. Always. Usually the trunk (most intense & risky development builds).
Try a mozilla nightly build of, lets say, today. I hope it doesn't crash either require a larger amount of memory either you got any troubles with javascript either...
No problem with TB version 0.6+ (20050212).
Bottom line is: Mozilla (Suite, Firefox, Thunderbird) is putting out far more polished products. The UI is better, the installation folders and profiles are kept across installations.
Granted, an office suite is a *far* more complex beast, but some of the design decisions leave me *very* skeptical, especially since doing it right would have not been any more (or less) effort in several cases.
Dont get me wrong, I'm *very* glad that OOo exists. I'm just frustrated that it is trying to emulate the inferior UI of MS Word when it should be emulating the UI of WordPerfect. I was hoping OOo 2.0 would be better in this respect.
--
Regards,
Peter Reaper
The browser you can trust: www.GetFirefox.com Reclaim Your Inbox: www.GetThunderbird.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
