Installing Libreoffice in Ubuntu

users
#52

Hi

Looking at the subject line I am confused. Ubuntu ships with a version of LO in each release and LO is in the official Ubuntu repositories. So what was the actual question, which was never clear to me. The only question that made any sense was how to install a Ubuntu ppa for the latest stable LO release but that did seemed to be the question. Adding a ppa is an easy process.

AFAIK most Linux desktop distros ship with LO as the office package with a few shipping with Calligra. In either case the other is often in the distro's repository and is usually trivial to install using the distro's package management tools.

Jay

#53

Hi Italo,

The only consistent complaints I hear about LO is that the UI is different from various MSO office versions and concerns about handling MSO file formats. The first is complaint was often due to user unwillingness to learn anything new - not an uncommon problem. This is not an LO specific issue. The second issue, to me, is more legitimate. I have seen many proprietary document formats for office documents come and go over the last 30 years. I can appreciate the concern about being able to open documents in a non-native package in the future.

I have not heard of any (my very limited sample) stability issues that could be attributed to LO. The stability issues I was seeing were Windows issues seen in many packages.

I suspect your stability experience is the norm, LO is very stable. If there are issues they are often user unwillingness to change or system problems outside of LO.

Jay

#54

Andreas Säger wrote

If you don't want any desktop integration because you want to use the new
suite as a secondary suite, rename/remove the desktop-ingegration.deb file
_before_ running dpkg and everything *should* be fine IMHO.

Oh, that was sloppy posting because renaming won't prevent that file from
being installed together with the other *.deb files (unless you renamed the
deb extension). This _may_ fail if there is some other suite installed.

1) Do nothing and run sudo dpkg -i *.deb if there is no other suite owning
/usr/bin/soffice

2) Move the desktop-integration.deb to the trash bin if you don't want the
desktop integration for this office suite.

3) If you want desktop integration for the newly installed suite AND there
is an /usr/bin/soffice file from another suite, then you should indeed make
a subdirectory and move that particular deb file before running sudo dpkg -i
*.deb in the DEBS directory without additional switch. This should run
without error. And then run sudo dpkg -i --force-overwrite *.deb in that
subdirectory in order to make this office suite the primary one overwriting
any /usr/bin/soffice. The overwrite switch applies only to this particular
package with this particular problem when there is another suite owning
/usr/bin/soffice.

The desktop-integration*.deb should reside in a separate subdirectory but
the LO guys always know better. Simply applying the overwrite switch to all
the *.deb packages may resolve unforeseen dependencies by overwriting
essential files of alternative office suites which would damage these
installations.

Thank you for your attention.

#55

Hi :slight_smile:
No need to "beat yourself up over it". Your initial post made enough sense
that people were able to run with it. Effectively it was little more than
a typo and under a stress that none of us enjoy but a few have had to
endure = so i think we can appreciate it being such a tiny and
understandable inaccuracy.

So, both your posts are very much appreciated - as always.
Many regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#56

Hi :slight_smile:
+1 to both points.

The UI issue is cropping up more often but many people, get over their
initial dislike and prefer the return to sanity because it makes it easier
to find things and easier to learn new stuff.

The formats issue is mostly one of perception. People still believe the MS
formats have longer longevity despite the fact they, almost daily, find
problems sharing such files with each other.

Just as Italo said and Jay agreed i've never had problems with any version
of LO myself (or with clients) but i know there have been many over the
years and even a couple of theoretical security issues. However i (well,
my clients) run into problems with MS Office quite often, despite seldom
actually using it myself. I originally joined this mailing list to learn
about current problems and work-arounds in order to be ready for client's
questions. I've always been over-prepared as a result = so thanks to all
of you for that :))
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#57

Thanks Tom. We try.
Blessings, Joe Conner, Poulsbo, WA USA

#58

Hi :slight_smile:
The original question was about getting the newer versions installed.
Ubuntu, especially their LTSes, tends to have quite old versions.

Many people take a while to realise they are fine to keep using older
versions, even ones that are no longer officially supported. Others enjoy
being on the bleeding edge or as close as they can get, possibly for the
thrill of it but maybe because it can be so dangerous with proprietary
software.

There are PPAs for both branches (i believe so anyway there were last time
i looked) and those can be used for Ubuntu, Mint and presumably many other
distros in the Debian family. It's also possible to install the "upstream"
version directly from the website and both Andreas and ZenWiz gave us good
instructions for doing that. :slight_smile: Then the whole thread took a left turn and
got (imo) very exciting and interesting :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#59

Hi :slight_smile:
"Thanks for the flowers"/approval which i've snipped. It's a shock to
finally agree on something! :))

The LTS approach was a new way of dealing with an old problem. The old and
still current problem is that projects are pulled in 2 opposing
directions;
1. exciting and new developments, fashion, bling
2. stay with something familiar and see it mature. NOT having to
constantly work at it.

That is probably why Redhat and Debian (and family) and many others (even
[shudders] Microsoft and to a lesser extent Apple) provide a version that
basically stays the same for years. Heck, many places grumble about
'having to' upgrade from Xp because it 'only' lasted 10 years! Some
organisations happily pay millions per year extra purely in order to be
able to stay with the same old Xp and STILL haven't developed a strategy
for upgrading.

Arch and others attempt to deal with the problem by doing rolling releases
- which brings it's own set of problems - as Windows 10 users and Microsoft
will doubtless be learning afresh over the next couple of years. Arch has
already long ago grokked this so MS could learn valuable lessons from them
but i think we all know they can't learn wisdom from outside, unless they
really have changed.

So in answer to your question to Alex; "Yes". Many places would appreciate
updates rather than to keep demanding their Sys. Admins have to keep
re-installing new upgrades.

It'd also be great if there were some sort of "Super Still" branch, like
Debian, or Redhat (and many others) that kept getting updates for 3-4
years. So that organisations could install the Super Still branch on new
systems in complete confidence that they wouldn't need to touch the system
again for a couple years.

There are other cases where people don't have broadband for downloading
full upgrades but could do with having a system they could rely on for
years. European city-dwellers might not quite realise what it's like
without broadband.

I think it's interesting that the super-rich share a problem in common with
the desperately isolated and cut-off. One which is largely addressed by
almost all of Gnu&Linux but not by LibreOffice.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

<snip />

#60

Hi :slight_smile:
"Thanks for the flowers"/approval which i've snipped. It's a shock to
finally agree on something! :))

The LTS approach was a new way of dealing with an old problem. The old and
still current problem is that projects are pulled in 2 opposing
directions;
1. exciting and new developments, fashion, bling
2. stay with something familiar and see it mature. NOT having to
constantly work at it.

That is probably why Redhat and Debian (and family) and many others (even
[shudders] Microsoft and to a lesser extent Apple) provide a version that
basically stays the same for years. Heck, many places grumble about
'having to' upgrade from Xp because it 'only' lasted 10 years! Some
organisations happily pay millions per year extra purely in order to be
able to stay with the same old Xp and STILL haven't developed a strategy
for upgrading.

Arch and others attempt to deal with the problem by doing rolling releases
- which brings it's own set of problems - as Windows 10 users and Microsoft
will doubtless be learning afresh over the next couple of years. Arch has
already long ago grokked this so MS could learn valuable lessons from them
but i think we all know they can't learn wisdom from outside, unless they
really have changed.

Both approaches have problems with either needing to maintain security releases for old versions (LTS) or with system stability/breakage (Rolling). The first appears safe because the system is relatively stable but older OSes may not support easily newer technologies. This can be problematic as the OS ages. Also, security releases and bug fixes must be maintained over several version of a library. Rolling releases can be have stability issues with being too close to the bleeding edge but they are likely to support the latest technologies. Also, there are fewer library versions to be maintained.

Having used both, I recommend LTS releases for most users knowing every x years their system must be upgraded to the current supported release.

My fear with W10 is MS does not truly understand the nature of a rolling release and their users are not at all familiar with the quirks of a rolling release. I have found one needs to pay closer attention to update issues as they occur with a rolling release and it helps to have a good grasp of how a computer works. Windows users are not used to more active update management and often have a very poor understanding of how a computer works. IMHO, the potential for a disaster about 6 - 12 months from initial release is very high with W10.

#61

UI changes frustrate me to no end. I tend to commit to learning a given piece of software so that its commands become second nature. Back in the days of DOS, I was a PC-Write wizard, having learned the old Wordstar Ctrl-key combinations and PC-Write's function key combinations. Certainly, the multi-tasking GUI's of Windows and Linux simply do more things, but I've never found any program with which I could match my productivity with PC-Write (in terms of just getting things done).

One frustration I've noticed recently is with LO's "Sidebar." In the past, I had my paragraph styles locked in a Sidebar. Now, the Styles box shares the Sidebar with the Properties, Gallery, and Navigator boxes, and when I open a new file, it defaults to the Properties box (a la AOO), when I *want* the Styles box. So, with every document, I now have to click on the Styles icon in the Sidebar. I've looked everywhere to find a way to make "Styles" the default Sidebar box, but with no luck. To, me this was a totally unnecessary UI "improvement."

If I could echo Andreas with a message to the developers. Please stop making changes just to make changes. Every UI change forces the user to change the way s/he uses the program, and those changes affect our personal performance and productivity, at least until we learn the new system. Yes, once the new UI is learned, it, too, becomes second nature, but I've rarely found a new UI to improve performance so much as to justify its replacement of the older way of working.

Virgil

#62

XP was the last version of Windows I actually liked. I was ticked when MS told me they would no longer support it, and that was the catalyst that finally made me commit to Linux. Windows 10 has only reinforced my decision to go with Ubuntu.

Virgil

#63

Hi :slight_smile:
I agree except there are at least 4 approaches that i know of. My post
avoided going down the LTS approach on the grounds that it had been
rejected out of hand already, even though it works well for some.

The Redhat approach is to have 2 distinctly different distros with separate
names and branding. One tests ultra-new technologies often before any
other distros. The other, their flagship one called "Redhat", stays set
for years before getting upgraded. There is a big fuss and much publicity
in the run-up to the upgrade.

Then there's the Debian style, which is roughly what we use. The new
branch has all the exciting experimental stuff in it. Once it's been out
in the wild on real-world machines and on enough bare-metal to shake a
stick at and received plenty of patches and updates the community
eventually decides that in a year or so it can be considered what they call
"Stable branch". Of course when their branch is very fresh and new it is
also stable in the developers way of thinking because it's been tested in
all the ways they reasonably can and is not crashing or anything like that
- so perhaps "Stable" is a bit misleading but it makes intuitive sense to
users so Debian goes with it. Then they have a new "Development branch"
which gets used by pretty much everyone anyway with pretty much all of them
appreciating the opportunity to work with something more advanced than the
standard. It's special and a bit edgy so they feel privileged to use it
and it makes them feel like they are possibly more geeky than they really
are. The 'older' branch, now called "Stable" branch continues to get
security updates and such.

SliTaZ does much the same except they call their newer branch their
"cooking branch" but they are French so it suits them well. Beats mucking
around with horses, right?

These are all not-quite the same as LTS. Everything for the LTS release
has to conform to a MUCH stricter set of rules. So that is all versions of
all packages and modules have to be up to a certain standard otherwise they
risk being left out entirely, perhaps in favour of a competitor. Evolution
couldn't consistently make the standard nor meet any deadlines so for a
long while it consistently got in as an older version but eventually got
ditched in favour of Thunderbird and, i think, Lightning. Even though
Evolution would be more ideal as it's more like a drop-in replacement for
Outlook (hence why it was given so many chances) but it just became
untenable to continue having it as the default.

The LTS does tend to have new features and some extra "wow" factor(s) above
and beyond what could be expected for a normal release. This draws
attention from the press and others who eagerly speculate and anticipate
what may or may not be in it. Discussions rage. But those new features
have often been well and truly tested well in advance but in something
approaching secrecy so that only a few people really know what is going to
be in it.

So with the LTS release it's not just about it getting longer term support
after it's been released. That is, of course, crucial but it's not the
main thing. The main thing is that it's substantially better quality on
it's release date than any other release is on their release date - even
the subsequent next couple of releases. So people often choose the LTS
even after there have been a few more recent releases = because they know
they get better quality.

To me that is substantially better than just using it because it's old!!
It's a huge 'seasonal' boost to their marketing - much the same speculation
and anticipation as before the release of a new iPhone!!

We don't get anything like that level of excitement before the release of a
new branch. We get a bit of fresh interest at each new branch's release
but less and less each time. Maybe it might be possible to learn something
from people who make it to the next plateau up - or perhaps we are more
like Microsoft in being unable to admit that others may have a point. But
perhaps i am wrong and Microsoft, Apple, Google and Ubuntu are really
clueless morons that we have nothing to learn from.

Thanks for the run-down on rolling releases. I knew there had to be
something but i had no idea what. I'd also guessed that people wouldn't
really run into those problems for a couple of years. Right now people are
having the usual teething problems of adapting to a new layout and
presumably the typical problems of using an MS product before "Service Pack
1" - and without the confidence of knowing roughly when the equivalent
might be.

Thanks and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#64

Hi Tom and all:

  Thanks for the explanation about Software Center, Synaptic and Apt-get
command.

Regards,

Jorge Rodríguez

#65

I'd love to be able to use the Wordstar Command Set, when editing
documents with LibreOffice, as would most users that are blind.

Ideally, every function that is currently done using mouse clicks, or
dragging the mouse, could be done from the keyboard alone.

jonathon

#66

Hi :slight_smile:
You are welcome :slight_smile: I'm chuffed that i knew something you didn't already
know. You often seem to be ahead of me with most things :slight_smile: Not by your
behaviour. You don't "act superior". You just say things that i didn't
know and so i learn from you. So, i was glad to be able to help :slight_smile:
Thanks and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#67

+1 to Virgil's comments.
Joe Conner, Poulsbo, WA USA

#68

See below as [...]

#69

+1 on this

But I can slide the styles box to appear at the top of the side bar and this
setting not only 'sticks' with the document but remains for new documents
started and for others opened.

I practically only use writer, sometimes a spreadsheet but almost never the
other modules.

I know nearly every user has preferences for how Gui's should work and you can't
please everybody. However, stability does have a large part to play.

My personal peeve is the navigation buttons at the bottom of the main right hand
scroll bar of writer. I always use them in 'page up/page down mode' but they
can be reconfigured to 19 other functions, at last view.

Unfortunately for me, when I use the Find function (frequently) either from the
search box on the bottom line or crtl-F or ctrl-H, this changes the
configuration of the pageup/down navigation buttons to 'find'.

It would be nice to have the nav buttons setting independent of other settings.

Philip

#70

This tread has veered sharply off course from the original post thus my change of the Subject.

If AOO Issued security and stability updates in a timely manner and if they issued a battle tested version of LO every couple of years or so, it could serve as a LTS outlet for the bleeding edge LO. This would reunify the Open Office community, solve the branding issue, and provide a valid purpose for both organizations.

Sadly the essential first premise of that statement has not been true.

Just a thought ....

#71

Hello James,

This tread has veered sharply off course from the original post thus
my change of the Subject.

If AOO Issued security and stability updates in a timely manner and if
they issued a battle tested version of LO every couple of years or so,
it could serve as a LTS outlet for the bleeding edge LO. This would
reunify the Open Office community, solve the branding issue, and
provide a valid purpose for both organizations.

Sadly the essential first premise of that statement has not been true.

Just a thought ....

I've been writing this several times. For *anyone* to deliver a LTS of any software, there needs to be a business model generating revenue on the LTS version. By which I mean, the one releasing the LTS has to generate money directly on the LTS. It does not mean having a LTS is a good or bad idea; it just means that there needs to be several (lots of, in fact) business cases.

In the case of AOO and LibreOffice -I can safely write about AOO in this particular instance- the question would be to know whether any direct contributor has an incentive (i.e. paying customers) to release such a LTS version? In the specific case of LibreOffice, I believe versions and upgrades are offered to paying customers by some of the companies employing certified developers. I am not so sure about what's going on with AOO. The way you framed your hypothesis, if I got your point right, is that the ASF would let the AOO project make a decision about releasing AOO as a LTS, implying that the ASF would offer professional support. I think it goes against their policies so it may be up to one of their sponsors to offer such services. The trouble is in this instance, they don't seem to have much developers and even less sponsors these days.

Best,

Charles.