![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Hi,
A friend recently asked me, if it is possible to remotely install and configure LibreOffice on numerous client machines - so that the admin does not have to run from one computer to the next to do the job. Is that possible for LO?
Thanks
Milos
Hello,
We deploy LO here through software delivery from CA. This works fine.
Met vriendelijke groeten, Salutations distinguées, Kind Regards,
DRIES FEYS
CORPORATE SERVICES • Specialist Software Developer
T +32 56 43 42 45 • F +32 56 43 44 46 • dries.feys@tvh.com
Milos Sramek wrote:
Hi,
A friend recently asked me, if it is possible to remotely install and
configure LibreOffice on numerous client machines - so that the admin
does not have to run from one computer to the next to do the job. Is
that possible for LO?
I take it that you're using Windows. The Libreoffice setup has a silent
install command line switch. I use the following command to "deploy" a
newer version
msiexec /qn /i "libreoffice_setup.msi%" SELECT_WORD=1 SELECT_EXCEL=1 SELECT_POWERPOINT=1 REGISTER_ALL_MSO_TYPES=1 ADDLOCAL=ALL RebootYesNo=No REMOVE=gm_o_Onlineupdate,gm_o_jf_Palm,gm_o_jf_Pocketpc
and put it into the domain login script, so that it gets executed if one
particular user with the right permissions to install software logs in.
I do this with Remote Desktop on multiple PC at the same time.
There are also proper deployment solutions available like OPSI.
HTH
Thomas
Milos Sramek wrote:
A friend recently asked me, if it is possible to remotely install and
configure LibreOffice on numerous client machines - so that the admin
does not have to run from one computer to the next to do the job. Is
that possible for LO?
Yes, it's certainly doable. It's easy enough on Linux and there are
tools available on Windows for that too.
Hi,
is it possible that you share this tools for windows? I will need to install
it to around 450 pc, so it will be cool to have some tool to do all
modification needed.
Kind regards,
Ivan Omazic
This might prove a useful starting point:
https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=28765&start=0
@Ivan,
From: IOmazic <iomazic@wmo.int>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 6:21 AMis it possible that you share this tools for windows? I will need to install
it to around 450 pc, so it will be cool to have some tool to do all
modification needed.
Since LibreOffice is packaged for installation using Microsoft Installer (msiexec.exe) you have a lot of options for doing the installation. You can directly modify the installer package with Microsofts ORCA utility. You can run /A administrative install to a network share and modify the resulting .msi installer, or apply a transform against it. Or you can do either and push with GPO or SCCM deployment.
Point is the standard tools for Windows software deployment all work pretty well with the way that Andras Timar and others have packaged the builds.
Stuart
Why are people still sending others to the OpenOffice.org web site for information about LibreOffice?
For this posted need, I remember hearing about "deployment" of LO on a LO web page. Although LO was a fork of OOo from several years ago, it is "grown" past those roots now. If we do not have the needed documentation now, we should really make it a priority to set up a web site/page to talk about IT management deployment of LO, including network based.
The current AOO/OOo web site should not be the place where people go to get information about LO. From a marketing aspect, this could lead business users to think we are not the package to use, but AOO is. That is wrong way of doing "business".
SO, just from the marketing aspect to businesses, this needs to be resolved. From the typical user, this could be an issue as well.
I stopped using OOo when LO came out. I do not want to have to explain to users that LO's documentation site[s] is not the place to find the needed information to migrate/deploy LO to their systems.
Would you tell the UK tech advisors to not consider LO for the open source option to using the mandated ODF file format requirements, but to go with AOO/OOo since we do not have the needed documentation? We would be saying this if we tell them to go to the OOo web site for the deployment information.
I see too many of these postings telling users to go to the OOo site[s] for the needed information or extension/template download. Yes, there may be something there that LO currently does not have, but it should not be the first option. LO needs to rely on LO's sites to give the user the help and support they need.
I do not use Nabble, but I would think that there must be a forum there about business migration and deployment. IF not, then there should be.
Am I alone in this opinion?
Hi 
You are not alone in that opinion but i can see it from other angles too.
1. The way i see it is that LO and AOO are produced by 1 large
community. There are quite a few people who work in both or move from
1 to the other and sometimes back again. The mainstream press seems
to think we fight and argue constantly and that seems to have boosted
coverage for both projects. AOO aims at a slightly different niche
from LO although both have a lot of ground in common. It's NOT a case
of us against them. It's both of us and others (Caligra/KOffice,
Google-docs, AbiWord&Gnumeric etc) acting in "co-operative
competition" with/against each other against a dominant market-leader.
2. I copy&pasted one page from OOo's documentation into our own wiki
and the original author proof-read it for us. He was more than happy
to share the knowledge and help distribute it widely. Since then
others have made a better page and Hagar has updated his one in AOO so
'mine' has fallen quite far behind and rarely gets visited now. I'll
set it as a redirect to the updated one someday.
3. I agree that business people are probably unfamiliar with the
concept of co-operative competition and that it might even scare them
off from using either of LO and AOO!! Corporate-types are often timid
when in unfamiliar terrain so it's better for us to appear to be easy
for them to understand (imo)
Regards from
Tom
YES, F.O.S.S packages share things with other groups, but I really thing business users needs the documentation on LO pages and not OOo pages. These people do not understand about the sharing of information between "friendly competition" FOSS packages and the lack of info due to the package[s] being too "new" or immature to work for them.
I really would hope the first place for our users for information would be on a LO site or in LO docs. So I feel we need to have the business information for deployment and migration in the LO wiki system and not ask the business users to go to our "friendly competition" for that info. It just does not look well for us and those who market and support LO to the business users.
Maybe these instructions are helpful
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Deployment_and_Migration
and
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Other_Documentation_and_Resources#Corporate_Users
YES
this is the type of LO page link we should give users instead of sending them off to OOo or any other non-LO site "first".
I knew we had documentation somewhere. We just need to get the word out there "better".
Maybe have more "indexed" material resources list. The "/Deployment_and_Migration" page is listed in the "Teams" section. Maybe have section titles in the main page that lists specific "discussions" or resource materials would be very helpful at this point. Maybe having a larger indexed list of topics that are of use to the setup, migration, and/or business deployment would be something that could be a "top level" listing in the main page and in the "documentation" page[s].
The "#Corporate_Users" page is not listed in the main documentation list, and needs to, instead of "other documents", etc., section. These things need to be "top level" items that are very easy to see from the main page and/or the main documentation page. If we can make it very easy for the business users, large and small, to find the needed documentation instead of a lot of searching around hoping we have what they need, then maybe we could get more exposure in the business world. The UK mandate for using ODF stated OpenOffice instead of the file format name. This was brought out in an article about LO 4.2.x. OOo/AOO seems to be thought of as the only "proper" ODF using package by "people" and not LO. This may be that they have more information equating OOo/AOO with ODF, and not LO, with ODF as the standard package for using that open file format[s] system. WE need to get businesses attention with the facts about both LO's ODF standards and the better OOXML "standards" usability that MS requires businesses to use.
We need our supporters to have easy access to where the needed references, in a well thought out "indexed" system of Wiki pages that make sense with topic groupings. This will help both these supporters and our users to find the needed information.
In the below listing, I would think that the documents needed by Business and Corporate users about setup, deployment, and migration to LO would be in one easy to find place, and not spread all over where you have to search other "needs" to find the link to the deployment info or other Corporate needed info. Right now it look like you have to go to several different sections to find the links that might be of common use to these users.
I would love to find out why the UK minister stated OOo for the file format[s] type, along with Google Docs, as potential formats to use instead of MSO's ones. Be nice to have some high up tech guy let the minister know that LO can do ODF documents just as well as "OOo", even though it is now called AOO instead of OOo. At least the UK and France are getting the idea that MSO proprietary formats are not the way to do business anymore if you want a more open government or business.
Hi
Copy&paste is good wrt my item 3.
Regards from
Tom
Googled for a solution.
Found an interesting thread.
Thought it could be useful to the OP.
Posted it.
I don't get what all this whining is about.
Is there LO-specific information around, or some tutorial that doesn't involve OO? Fine, somebody is goind to come up with it (you didn't, by the way. Just sayin')
As an example, V Stuart Foote provided a more general solution to the OP problem in this same thread.
I am not "whining", or hope that is not so. I am stating the fact that TDF and LO are mature "company" and software packages. Our support "personnel" should look for a solution withing our own web site[s] and not go to some other "company's" software package web site[s]. Yes, both packages has the same "roots" OOo to LO and OOo to AOO, but we are now different packages and offer different GUI styles and options, plus our base coding has been changed and may not be reflected in AOO's base coding.
WE need to have all of the needed information to deploy LO, migrate to LO, and use LO, in our own web pages, wiki or not. We should not rely on AOO/OOo web sites for that information. It has been available since January 2011, and we have grow up along the way to be thought as a different package then our roots, as a fork of OOo, and different from AOO's "fork" of OOo. We should, by now, have most of the needed information available on our web pages and not need to tel users to go to an AOO/OOo web page[s] to get that information. Yes, it may be the same information, but users get confused if we keep telling them to "go to our competion" to get the information they need. They, most likely, not understand the FOSS community and its sharing of code, information, and such. So we need to keep our users happy with looking into our sites, and not others, to get the information [and help] they need with our office suite package. I also would not expect users of AOO to expect to go to LO's pages to get their needed information. It is not the "normal" business support practice people expect to see form company's support "center".
To some users, having us tell our users to go to AOO/OOo web sites for their info, this might lead them to think/feel that LO is not a "grown up" and fully mature office suite package while AOO is. In "year one" articles seem to state that LO was better than OOo. Then the official word came out that Apache acquired OOo and now there are two packages competing to be the best package in this non-MS office suite market. I feel we are better than AOO still, and we need to take pride in that. This "issue" of sending our users to the other package site may lead our business users to feel that we are not ready to be a contender in that market, while AOO is.
We want to be proud of how well LO works for this market. We should make every effort to make sure that our web sites have the needed information our users want and need. It is just the right marketing and support that most people expect from a mature company and its product[s]. We matured during the first few months or by the end of our first year of "operation" as a company and software provider.
I want US, the support and marketing people, to take pride in what LO has done and will due in the future. But, it gets a little harder if we keep sending our users to AOO/OOo for information. We really need to give our users everything we can to have them think that our package is the best one in the FOSS and open source office suite market, plus the best alternative to buying/using MS Office [if available on their OSs] for their personal and company's needs. We need to take pride in our office suite and our support system, to the point where businesses will take a look at "us" and agree they we are the best and we have the best office suite for their business's wants and needs. When governments [and their agencies], businesses [large and small], home and academic users, see LibreOffice as their first choice, and best choice, for their office suite needs, then we will gain more market shares [and faster]. We want these users to see our office suite as the better alternative to buying/renting MSO to use for their needs in an office suite. Europe is coming around, but the USA is not, to see that FOSS may be the better option for their business needs over the proprietary office suites and their file formats.
So, if this is "whining" then I cannot help it.
I want LO to be the best we can be. I want our users to thing we are the best. I want potential users to look at LO and see that we are the best. So, I want LO's marketing and support people and web site[s] to reflect that we are the best and we take pride in being the best by making LO better and easier to find help and support from our resources and not going to others for that help and support. I am proud to be a LO user and I want other to think the same about LO as I do. I want our marketing people to have all of the help and resources we can give them to help them with their efforts in getting businesses [and other users] to see LO as the better option than sticking with proprietary software and their proprietary file formats that are not the International Standard for office file formats. ODF is that standard, while OOXML is not [and not supported properly between MS's own versions]. We are the best FOSS and ODF office suite on the market. We need to make sure potential users knows that as well. To do so, we must present a mature front for all parts of our "doing business", including our help and support abilities. The new design of the front page of our web site [since 4.0] makes us look better to businesses, over the previous design[s].
Yes, this work to make sure we are the one place, and only place, people need to go to get help and support for LO. But as a mature office suite and company, we should be able to do this. We must do this, if we are to be a contender in this office suite market and alternative to MSO.
We are the best, so not let us do everything possible to make sure our current and potential user know that we are the best.
So, if this is "whining", well I just want us to do everything we can to show others that we are the best office suite out there, including MSO, plus the other OOo forks [AOO, etc.].
Tim Lungstrom
creator of the LibreOffice North American Community DVD Project [established in the spring/summer of 2011]
creator of the LibreOffice-NA.us web site.
user of LibreOffice since its first official release back in January 2011.
living in the Finger Lakes Region of New Your State, in the USA.
For the record, I've been a happy user of "soffice" even before the 1.0 release (I started being happy right after they dictched that awful desktop-over-desktop Start Office thing 
Even before LO existed I pushed OO over MSO in the company where I work (I'm the IT manager). I even introduced Ubuntu Linux on the desktop (plus the server room is 90% debian). Ubuntu has switched to LO. I still haven't "converted" all of the windows workstations to LO, so I run a mixture of OO/LO instances with virtually no problems (thanks to the virtual absence of file format compatibility issues).
As a (again, happy) user, I'm not that passionate about the LO/OO "competition", but I can see where you're coming from.
Though I'm not concerned about the product image as you are, you certainly have a point, so I'll try and be more careful in the future.
Given the differences in the code base, can we even be sure that information provided on the AOO website will apply to LibO?
I do know that there are enough differences between AOO and LibO, that it is easier to simply install and use both, than trying to work around the missing feature/function in the other one.
jonathon
I miss that! And starmail too...
Who doesn't? So snappy... especially considering how powerful the PCs were back then
(BTW that was obviously supposed to read StarOffice, not StarT Office - what a window-ish name! 
)
Hi
I used to like the Netscape email client. After it went into Firefox
and then shoved into Seamonkey it seemed to lose lots of what i felt
made it so powerful. Many times after sending an email Netscape
allowed me to delete it from the other person's server.
I've heard that a lot of people prefer Claws precisely because it is
so tiny and powerful but i've not seen one that can do all Netscape
did.
Regards from
Tom