On 02/11/10 13:04, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2010-02-11 12:49 PM, Programmer In Training wrote: >> If this is the future of OpenOffice.org (needing extra files, such as MS >> C++ redistributable), I see no reason to continue using it past 3.1x. > > Don't be silly. Lots of programs are needing some basic minimal > requirements, just as MSO does. > > A *lot* of programs need 2005 C++ redistr (or even 2008)... so what? It > is small and free. > > Complaining about something like this is - well, I guess I already said > it... it is silly. >
So what? To get full functionality of OOo I already have to install Java. Free? Perhaps free to use, but hardly free as in beer. OOo is big enough without adding Java and another group of files to the mix. You call it silly, I call it managing my resources, and I don't know what you qualify as a lot, but nothing I currently have installed on my XP Machine (out of around 50 programs big and small) require the 2005 (or 2k8) C++ redistr. OOo would be the very first one. I don't even have the .Net Framework installed. Just more exploitable MS Crudware. While I may now be on FreeBSD, my parents still use XP (refuse to change, but it's their computer so their choice) and I refuse to put on any unnecessary MS Crudware. That's called good security policy (as is a firewall and up-to-date virus scanner). So call it silly if you wish, but don't claim that "A *lot*" of programs use it when it may very well not be true in every user's experience. I've successfully kept MS Windows virus and hack free in my family's house for many years now just because I take the "paranoid" approach. I'm already searching for a copyfree[0] replacement for OOo and MSO. [0]: http://www.copyfree.org -- Yours In Christ, PIT Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
