On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:04:54 -0800 NoOp <[email protected]> dijo: >On 01/13/2010 03:51 PM, John Jason Jordan wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:27:35 -0800 >> John Jason Jordan <[email protected]> dijo: >> >>>What I meant to ask was what is the name of the folder in ~/? For >>>example, in OOo 2.x it was called ~/.openoffice.org2, for 3.0 the "2" >>>was dropped (which I found confusing, but oh well). Now I have two >>>folders: >>> >>>~/.ooo3.new >>>~/.openoffice.org >>> >>>I don't recall ever seeing ooo3.new before when I had 3.0 on Jaunty, >>>so is that the new folder? >> >> I discovered that my 3.1.1 is using the ~/.openoffice.org folder. I >> proved this by renaming each one in turn, and also by renaming both. >> None of my extensions, templates or preferences appear unless the >> ~/.openoffice.org folder is intact. >> >> Interestingly, with both of them renamed OOo automatically creates a >> new one, also titled ~/.openoffice.org, but the AutoCorrect feature >> is still missing. In other words, the problem is not in my >> configurations. >> >>>>I _think_ you are using one of the no-go variants of OOo. The >>>>default no-go installation omits a number of features that people >>>>find useful, and adds several show stopping bugs, that should >>>>require immediate recall, and be fixed, because their >>>>inefficiency experts live in Fantasy Land.(To call them show >>>>stopping bugs, is to underestimate the degree to which they >>>>cripple the functionality of OOo. On a scale on 1 - 100, in >>>>importance to fix, these rate at least 10 000, if not 100 000. >>>> >>>>>And why would Fedora install OOo without installing all its >>>>>features? >>>> >>>>The theory is that people don't use the features that aren't >>>>included. >> >>>It's definitely a distro-customized version of 3.1.1, that is, a >>>no-go version of some sort. I fully understand the difference >>>between no-go versions and the "real" OOo from the website. It's >>>just that if they disabled AutoCorrect I find it incredible that >>>they would do so in the first place, and also incredible that I'm >>>the first person who has noticed it. Besides, I do have the >>>acor_en-US.dat file. Why would I even have such a file if >>>AutoCorrect was disabled? >> >> Just now I found these: >> >> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21724 >> >> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=219704&highlight=autocorrect >> >> Apparently, jonathan's supposition was correct - Fedora disabled the >> AutoCorrect feature, astonishing as that is. But in reading the above >> posts, apparently it is not just AutoCorrect that is disabled. Fedora >> disabled everything that requires Java. And, according to the above >> posts, the logic is that Java, while free, is not completely open >> source. I'm not sure if that is correct, because I have Sun's Java >> installed and also one called Free Software Foundation Java 1.50. OOo >> is happy to use either one, although AutoCorrect still won't work >> regardless of which one I select. >> >> So now I am off to uninstall Fedora's OOo and install the one from >> www.openoffice.org. Y'all keep your fingers crossed for me, 'k? > >I wonder if those statements on the forum posts are accurate >(disclaimer: I do not use fedora but use Ubuntu instead). It may be the >same/similar situation as with Ubuntu; the java related bits are not >included in the base install due to install CD space limitations. In >Ubuntu, you need to: > >$ sudo apt-get install openoffice.org > >in order to pull in Base, the java wizards, etc. Perhaps Fedora has the >same? Have a look in your package manager to see.
Well, I found the statement about Java and Fedora on the OOo website as well: http://download.openoffice.org/common/instructions.html#linux So I'm guessing now that it's true. In any event, whether the Java thing is true or not is now moot as far as I am concerned. I uninstalled everything from the Fedora repos, then downloaded the tar.bz file from OOo and installed it. AutoCorrect is now working fine. There were a few little glitches along the way. The OOo website correctly figured out that I was using Fedora, so it offered the RPM based archive. But after spending an hour downloading it and then untarring it I discovered that the OOo website failed to detect that my Fedora was x86_64. So I had to go back and download the right architecture archive file. And upon launching OOo the first time there were some error messages about the Sun Report Builder extension that I had installed - it couldn't find the files or something. But when I clicked OK on the error message box it just kept coming back up. I had to kill OOo to get out of the loop. But then, oddly, after relaunching OOo there were no further error messages about the Sun Report Builder extension, and it appears to be working fine. The instructions also failed to tell me which of the desktop-integration RPMs to install. I debated between the one for Redhat and the one for Freedesktop. I went ahead and installed the Redhat one and it seemed to work. The instructions could use some expansion, or put a Readme file in the desktop-integration folder. All's well that ends well, but I'm still a little pissed at Fedora. I don't mind their decision, because that is their prerogative. But I sincerely object to the fact that it was not more openly documented. I wasted a lot of my own time and that of others here trying to track this down. Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
