LO Conflicts with OOo

users
#1

I installed the new portable LO (http://portableapps.com/apps/office/libreoffice_portable) on a USB stick. When I try to run it, it complains that there is another copy running. It seems that this is because OpenOffice's (non-portable) Quickstarter is running on the machine. Of course, OOo's Quickstarter is running for multiple users who happen to be logged on to the machine (Win XP Pro) so, although I can kill mine, I can't kill the others.

Is it right that a *portable* version should be prevented from running by a mere office application (not anti virus or lock-down software or parental control or anything similar) installed on the machine? Is it right that a *portable* program should be prevented from running by some process owned by another *non-admin* user? Is it right that LO is interfered with by OOo? Or is at least one of these a bug?

Why should I not be able to run LO and OOo at the same time on the same machine?

Harold Fuchs
London, England

#2

Harold Fuchs wrote:

I installed the new portable LO
(http://portableapps.com/apps/office/libreoffice_portable) on a USB stick.
When I try to run it, it complains that there is another copy running. It
seems that this is because OpenOffice's (non-portable) Quickstarter is
running on the machine. Of course, OOo's Quickstarter is running for
multiple users who happen to be logged on to the machine (Win XP Pro) so,
although I can kill mine, I can't kill the others.

I don't know much about multiple user logins, but the behaviour you
describe is obviously undesirable. Just as a test, you could try to
open Task Manager (Ctrl+ Shift + Esc) and kill all the LO/OOo
processes. I don't know the name of the quickstarter process, but the
"main" process(es) is/are usually "soffice.bin" and/or "soffice.exe".
There should be a tick-box at the bottom "Show processes from all
users"; can you see the other user's quickstarter if that is ticked?

Is it right that a *portable* version should be prevented from running by a
mere office application (not anti virus or lock-down software or parental
control or anything similar) installed on the machine? Is it right that a
*portable* program should be prevented from running by some process owned by
another *non-admin* user? Is it right that LO is interfered with by OOo? Or
is at least one of these a bug?

I may be mistaken but as far as I know, LO and OOo are not expected to
run at the same time (so I don't think it is a bug). But if they are
both installed on the same computer, they should both work (though not
at the same time). Same would apply to the portable version(s).

Why should I not be able to run LO and OOo at the same time on the same machine?

Anyone care to comment?

Regards
Stephan

#3

The problem for me is with the portable version, I am now running at
same time LibreOffice 3.4 OpenOffice 3.4dev y OpenOffice 3.3
(Win7x64Ultimate).

Probably something is missing in the portable version to reduce the size
of downloaded file.

Miguel Ángel.

#4

It makes perfect sense that OOo and LO could be installed side by side and also run at the same time.

The problem is that they all lay claim to the same program names, library names, and probably registry settings.

(The use of the same program names is why Windows, for example, can't have Open With ... for both
LO, and OOo on the association of programs with file extensions, such as .odt and .ods. (But one can
add Open With ... Microsoft Word, WinZip, etc. Different versions of the same product are harder for Windows to distinguish with Open With ..., absent some creative work on the part of the producers of those product versions.)

Now that there are different lineages progressing from a common OO.o 3.2-or-so base, there needs to be a way to avoid collisions with parallel efforts and the common past versions.

For users, all of their choices should work. Running a portable version should work. Having user accounts with different versions should work, etc. I suspect that these cases have simply not been dealt with systematically, although clearly there has been some attention to it. And if it is by design to not all concurrent operation, I would expect gentle handling when an user violates that constraint.

(I have no recommendation on what installs are on top of what previous versions of the same product. It may be a little too course-grained that any LO 3.y will replace any LO 3.x where x < y, although that is a second-order problem. It is good that LO 3.y does not replace OOo 3.x, and vice versa.)

- Dennis

#5

Hi :slight_smile:
There is a guide to help avoid the usual conflicts
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel

I think the problems are mostly when both version are open at the same time, for example if one is permanently kinda open by having it's QuickLauncher on.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#6

Hi,

Tom Davies schrieb:

Hi :slight_smile: There is a guide to help avoid the usual conflicts
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel

I think the problems are mostly when both version are open at the
same time, for example if one is permanently kinda open by having
it's QuickLauncher on. Regards from Tom :slight_smile:

You can run the programs the same time, if each instance uses a different folder for the user settings. Also the other way round is possible, running one application with different users settings at the same time, again different folders for the user settings are needed.

Only the association between document type and program is unique.

Kind regards
Regina

#7

That is still a *serious* issue. Please see:

<http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4130>
and in particular:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4359>
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4360>

You can of course find the thread in the .dev list under "Change
executable/sh names".

The issue seems to have fallen on deaf ears following that thread. Seems
to me that with all the thousands of lines of code 'clean-up' reported
by TDF dev, the actual program .exe's could have been renamed from
swriter to lowriter et al or similar by now.

#8

Hi :slight_smile:
I think it's going to be easier to do something quite radical AFTER code clean-up is almost done. Surely it's got to be done to the entire code-base all at once and all the libraries and all have to be changed at the same time? I don't think it's a trivial thing to fix.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#9

"NoOp" <glgxg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:j8i8on$g8u$1@dough.gmane.org...

<snip>

You can run the programs the same time, if each instance uses a
different folder for the user settings. Also the other way round is
possible, running one application with different users settings at the
same time, again different folders for the user settings are needed.

<snip>

I don't think this can be correct. The conflict I reported was between a non-portable OOo installed to the C: drive on the machine and a portable LO installed on a USB key. I don't think they'd be using the same folder for user settings.

#10

Harold Fuchs wrote:

The conflict I reported was between a
non-portable OOo installed to the C: drive on the machine and a portable LO
installed on a USB key. I don't think they'd be using the same folder for
user settings.

As far as I know, the portable version uses the profile on the USB key
(as you mention). It seems to be located here:
Z:\PortableApps\LibreOfficePortable\Data\settings (where "Z:\" is the
USB key's drive letter).

Please check your attribution. I believe it was Regina Henschel who
said you could use different user settings. From your post, it seems
like NoOp.

Regards
Stephan

#11

As I can see, the problem is only with portable version, may be
something is eliminated to reduce the pack size.
Miguel Ángel

#12

"NoOp" <glgxg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:j8i8on$g8u$1@dough.gmane.org...

<snip>

You can run the programs the same time, if each instance uses a
different folder for the user settings. Also the other way round is
possible, running one application with different users settings at the
same time, again different folders for the user settings are needed.

*NoOp didn't write that*

<snip>

I don't think this can be correct. The conflict I reported was between a
non-portable OOo installed to the C: drive on the machine and a portable LO
installed on a USB key. I don't think they'd be using the same folder for
user settings.

Harold, check your attributes. I didn't with *any* of what you just
quoted. And while you're at it, fix your email client so that it doesn't
add an email address in 'wrote in message'. It's rude and assist
spammers in the process.

#13

Hi :slight_smile:
It looks pretty clear to me. Anyway you can never really trust how the thread might have been manipulated along the way so judging people based on a reply of a reply of a reply would be pretty dumb. The content is more important than who said what and is only useful if the most recent post in the thread doesn't seem to make much sense on it's own.

There is no need to give people a hard time just because they don't do things your way. Freedom of choice right?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#14

Hi :slight_smile: It looks pretty clear to me.

What looks "pretty clear" to you?

Anyway you can never really trust
how the thread might have been manipulated along the way so judging
people based on a reply of a reply of a reply would be pretty dumb.
The content is more important than who said what and is only useful
if the most recent post in the thread doesn't seem to make much sense
on it's own.

Nonsense. Harold knows how to read threads (even top-posted mangled ones).

There is no need to give people a hard time just because they don't
do things your way. Freedom of choice right? Regards from Tom :slight_smile:

Excuse me? "don't do things your way"?? If I post a reply and attribute
the content to you, and you hadn't posted any of it would that be
"Freedom of choice"? Nevermind, don't answer that; it will keep the list
cleaner.
...

#15

"NoOp" <glgxg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:j8q5dk$scb$1@dough.gmane.org...

Sorry for the delay, been out of action for a few days.

"NoOp" <glgxg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:j8i8on$g8u$1@dough.gmane.org...

<snip>

You can run the programs the same time, if each instance uses a
different folder for the user settings. Also the other way round is
possible, running one application with different users settings at the
same time, again different folders for the user settings are needed.

*NoOp didn't write that*

<snip>

I don't think this can be correct. The conflict I reported was between a
non-portable OOo installed to the C: drive on the machine and a portable LO
installed on a USB key. I don't think they'd be using the same folder for
user settings.

Harold, check your attributes. I didn't with *any* of what you just
quoted.

No, you didn't. That was a mistake. Apologies.

And while you're at it, fix your email client so that it doesn't
add an email address in 'wrote in message'. It's rude and assist
spammers in the process.

I don't think I can fix my mail client - Outlook Express 6 - which I have been using to handle OOo and LO mail lists since I joined quite a few years ago. If you know how, please let me know (yes, I have Googled quite extensively without joy). If you think it's rude, sorry. BUT you are the first person in many years to mention it and I know I'm not the only one whose replies include the originator's e-mail address.

Regards, Harold

#16

"NoOp" <glgxg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

...

Harold, check your attributes. I didn't with *any* of what you just
quoted.

No, you didn't. That was a mistake. Apologies.

...
No worries Harold... I was having a bad 'no hair' day.

All the best. Gary