Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Dec 2006 18:35 UTC, submitted by Patrik Buckau
Features, Office "OpenOffice.org 2.1 is recommend for all users, as it represents a significant improvement over all previous versions. Among other things: multiple monitor support for Impress; improved Calc HTML export; enhanced Access support for Base; even more languages; automatic notification of updates."
Thread beginning with comment 191580
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: As RPMs
by gilboa on Wed 13th Dec 2006 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: As RPMs"
gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Or you can run Windows or OS X and install programs from wherever and never have it be difficult.... Just a thought.

What a load of ****!
If you're using Windows and/or OSX, OO.org already done the packaging for you.
But don't let the facts get in your way.

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: As RPMs
by MechR on Wed 13th Dec 2006 06:00 in reply to "RE[4]: As RPMs"
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

"If you're using Windows and/or OSX, OO.org already done the packaging for you."

But isn't that the point? That they can do it for Windows and OSX, but not for Linux? It suggests a deficiency in Linux standardization :/

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: As RPMs
by dylansmrjones on Wed 13th Dec 2006 08:46 in reply to "RE[5]: As RPMs"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

They can also do it for Linux, they've just chosen not to. Don't know why.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: As RPMs
by cyclops on Wed 13th Dec 2006 09:00 in reply to "RE[5]: As RPMs"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"But isn't that the point? That they can do it for Windows and OSX, but not for Linux? It suggests a deficiency in Linux standardization :/"

Its not a "deficiency in Linux" its simply an major advantage of Windows XP. In reality its a trade-off.

Windows is a "static" platform.
One way of doing things "The Microsoft Way"
Rare updates
No Choice of kernel/shell/Wigets/Desktop/API's etc etc.
Backward compatible.

Linux "dynamic platform.
Many alternatives of doing things
Regular updates
Pick and choose suitable components.
Limited backward compatibility.

The reality is Windows XP is simply the best environment, for deploying a *binary* applications across millions of machines, but the price of this is incredibly high. Microsoft talk "innovation" but little happens. It took almost 6 years between versions, and offers marginal improvements, developed by 70,000 employees. They have to live with bad design choices for years. They struggle to get people to *choose* to move to the next version. Its a security maintenance nightmare. It uses *old* technology, and even its latest offering Vista looks too little too late.

Now I haven't compared Linux vs Vista, or a Package Manager to a Single installer. Or even discussed freedesktops standardization of the desktop

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: As RPMs
by gilboa on Wed 13th Dec 2006 15:49 in reply to "RE[5]: As RPMs"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

... If you're talking about standardization, you'll have to remove Windows from the List.

Windows does -not- enforce any type of standardization on either software or driver installers:
First, Windows does not control the installer - an installer can add/remove/edit/change what-ever it wants... Heck, it can even change the kernel if it wants to.
Second, a Windows installer (even an MSI one) isn't even required (by the OS) to be able to cleanly uninstall itself. (Try removing Visual Studio 2K3/2K5 and you'll see what I mean)
Third, a Windows installer has zero (in numbers - 0) dependency resolving capabilities - leaving it all to the install itself. People speak about RPM hell... Just count the number of MSVC*.dll, MFC*.dll you have on your system and you'll see what I mean.

On the other hand, Linux distributions usually come with OS based software package management which enforce a clean install and uninstall [*] procedures and does the dependency resolving for you.
You may claim that there are way too many types of package management in the Linux world and I won't argue with you. But I rather have too many package managers, then have no package manager what-so-ever.

- Gilboa
* You may screw the package manager by using post-install scripts, but a package that includes such a script will never find its way into an official software repository.

Reply Parent Score: 2