Installing Libreoffice in Ubuntu

users
#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.

#72

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
That is exactly the Redhat strategy.

If the different licenses could allow them to use all our code and allow us
to use all our code then that would be perfect. Sadly i don't think it's
possible any more. IBM were very clear that they didn't want any of their
massive code donation to end up in LibreOffice and the Apache license
ensures that. It's the one of the few advantages the OpenOffice
program(s)/code has over the LibreOffice program(s)/code.

Luckily the branding issue has largely faded away or even turned in our
favour. Their pale washed-out blue has been largely overtaken by our bold,
dynamic, forceful green&black. Our logo on it's own looks like a page with
the corner being turned over so it fits with what we are about. OO's
seagull doesn't say much about what they do except "freedom" and that is
less unique these days.

People have seen the LibreOffice brand go from strength to strength and
appear to grow incredibly in a very short time. From 20 people about 5
years ago to over 60 million within the first couple of years. It's clear
and simple. The OpenOffice route has been very difficult. They have done
very well to gain the standing they do have - but to outsiders it still
looks like they either shrank massively or barely grew at all.

Some parts of each community would have a very hard time integrating with
each other now. Both have good reason to be fiercely independent, having
travelled very different stormy paths in the last half-decade.

Also the appearance of fighting and competition between the 2 projects has
done both of us quite a big favour.

If it were possible to chart the growth of both projects added together, in
whatever terms you like (such as; number of devs, number of users, number
of press articles, activity, whatever). Then for the first 10 years, under
Sun, you'd probably see a very steady fairly impressive growth. From the
moment after the split/fork the growth would rocket upwards.

Sure many of our initial gains were OOs losses, but those losses could
easily have gone off to MS Office instead of 'staying' with us. OO may
regain some of those now that it looks a lot less chaotic than us. But a
lot of the gains of both organisations have been with organisations,
cities, even a national-police-force and other people who had never even
heard of either of us before.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#73

Hi :slight_smile:
Unfortunately the rest of the LibreOffice Community uses the word "Stable"
to mean something completely different from our ('normal' users)
understanding of the word.

They 'just' mean the program wont crash. They get very offended at the
mention of the idea of being less than stable because a lot of work goes
into testing to make sure it wont crash.

They wont, don't or can't understand the word "stable" from a normal users
perspective.

Other than that i completely agree with you and i'm fairly certain that
most people on this mailing list probably do too. It's probably why so
many here stick with "Still" for their clients or on machines they rely on
for actual work.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#74

How do you slide it? I've tried dragging it with a left-click and right-click but nothing happens. I'm using LO 4.4.5.2 on Ubuntu 14.04LTS.

Virgil

#75

I will do all of that when I get a chance.

Thanks.

MR

#76

Rather frustrating - why?

How do I correct this setting

Dave H

#77

Hi :slight_smile:
Brilliant, that reminded me to do the wiki part. So the script is now
here;
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Install/Linux#Script_For_Installing

Hopefully i might remember to sort the other bits for that wiki later on or
tomorrow. Anyone else is welcome to do the copy for rpm systems or/and
upload the script-file itself.

Thanks and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#78

Virgil, I'm on UbuntuStudio 1404 with LO 4.2.8.2

Sorry, my statement was incomplete.

I originally created another floating styles panel by clicking on the 'Styles
and Formatting' icon on the formatting toolbar. I then docked that floating
panel in the side bar. It originally docked at the bottom of the side bar but I
left-clicked on its header and dragged it onto the document and then back on to
the top of the sidebar.

It has stayed there ever since. So the sidebar now has the styles panel at the
top and the properties panel at the bottom. I find that a more convenient way
of working.
Philip

#79

We have no idea what you are talking about.