The package

l10n
#1

I have been trying to download OpenOffice from the download page. I was hoping to find a Khmer build... but it is not available.

I am offered a "multi" build, which the instructions define as "including the most common languages" (but without specifying which) and the all_languages 250Mb package that for sure includes all languages. After I am able to figure out which of the two packages I should use, then the help package has to be downloaded and installed separately.

From a distributor's point of view this is quite complex. We have to give two packages for installation and the complete size is twice what is needed, which when downloading from Cambodia is quite an issue.

Will single language packages not be made available, as was the case with OpenOffice before? It might be a bit more difficult to maintain the sites, but it really makes distribution of the suite and our lives much simpler.

Thanks,

Javier

#2

Hi Javier, *,

I have been trying to download OpenOffice from the download page.

You won't get OpenOffice.org from the libreoffice.org website...

I was
hoping to find a Khmer build... but it is not available.

It is available,...

I am offered a "multi" build, which the instructions define as "including
the most common languages" (but without specifying which) and the
all_languages 250Mb package that for sure includes all languages.

For winodws, 3.4.x is only available as multi, which contains all
available languages.
In 3.3.x, there was multi and all, and when you use the selection
dropdown to the more "obscure" languages and compare that with the
"mainstream" languages you'll notice that it will select the
appropriate variant.

After I am
able to figure out which of the two packages I should use, then the help
package has to be downloaded and installed separately.

The download page does it for you, no reason to "figure it out yourself".
And yes, help is separate for all languages.
On Linux you even got three packages, the full version (english) &
languagepack and helppack
On Mac it is full version (english) + languagepack (that also includes help)

Will single language packages not be made available, as was the case with
OpenOffice before?

Yes, it was a deliberate decision to only provide one single installer
with all languages for Windows.

ciao
Christian

#3

I am trying to understand the logic of this.

1.- Single package for all languages + separate packs for help:

- They occupy less in the servers, because there are no complete installers for each language.
- The installer is in English (a foreign language in most cases).
- Users must install all least two packages.
- Requires post-handling of language settings (in English, most usually a foreign language).
- Requires understanding how to do this. Definitely not what beginners want.
2.- Single packages for each language:

- They occupy more space in servers.
- They use the standard practice in most software of one installer for the application.
  - They are in the local language in most cases.
- If well done, they do not require post-handling of language settings.
- A beginner can install the application in her/his own language without much fuzz.

Some users, in developed countries, download installers from the web. In developing countries, they do not have the bandwith to do this, distribution is through CDs.
For large installations, it is always done through CDs or network.

Would it not be interesting to facilitate the labor of distribution by producing packages that are easier to install by everybody (single installers fully in local language)? For most of the people that we work with (school teachers who do not speak English), the difference is between being able to do it or not.

Cheers,

Javier

#4

Hi Javier,

I am trying to understand the logic of this.

1.- Single package for all languages + separate packs for help:

- They occupy less in the servers, because there are no complete installers
for each language.

Right.

- The installer is in English (a foreign language in most cases).

It is a multi language installer, language is automatically selected
to match the language of the operating system, but it can be
overridden manually.

- Users must install all least two packages.

No, installing help is not necessary. There is the online wiki help.

- Requires post-handling of language settings (in English, most usually a
foreign language).

No, Windows installer installs English + the language of the operating system.

Would it not be interesting to facilitate the labor of distribution by
producing packages that are easier to install by everybody (single
installers fully in local language)? For most of the people that we work
with (school teachers who do not speak English), the difference is between
being able to do it or not.

If someone volunteers to do that, it's OK. Single language installers
are still buildable, and even help can be included with little effort.
I don't think that we should produce official TDF builds for all
languages separately. But I can help you in producing a Khmer
installer, if you are interested.

Best regards,
Andras

#5

Hello all,

2011.08.23 13:49, Javier Sola rašė:

Hi Javier, *,

Will single language packages not be made available, as was the case
with
OpenOffice before?

Yes, it was a deliberate decision to only provide one single installer
with all languages for Windows.

I am trying to understand the logic of this.

1.- Single package for all languages + separate packs for help:

- They occupy less in the servers, because there are no complete
installers for each language.
- The installer is in English (a foreign language in most cases).
- Users must install all least two packages.
- Requires post-handling of language settings (in English, most
usually a foreign language).
- Requires understanding how to do this. Definitely not what beginners
want.
2.- Single packages for each language:

- They occupy more space in servers.
- They use the standard practice in most software of one installer for
the application.
- They are in the local language in most cases.
- If well done, they do not require post-handling of language settings.
- A beginner can install the application in her/his own language
without much fuzz.

Some users, in developed countries, download installers from the web.
In developing countries, they do not have the bandwith to do this,
distribution is through CDs.
For large installations, it is always done through CDs or network.

Would it not be interesting to facilitate the labor of distribution by
producing packages that are easier to install by everybody (single
installers fully in local language)? For most of the people that we
work with (school teachers who do not speak English), the difference
is between being able to do it or not.

There is also a third approach that I keep reminding people of: a
modular installer. IMO, it would bring the best of two worlds, but it
would require someone to spend time implementing it. Here's how it would
work:
1) the user downloads a single file.
   option a) it's a *small* installer file. This file only contains the
installer code, license, and configuration data, but no packages.
   option b) it's a bundle, which contains the above file (the actual
installer) and a few default packages (e.g. the suite and en-US
language pack). When started, it unpacks all files into some folder (as
is done now), then launches the actual installer.
2) when started, the actual installer allows the user to choose the
components to be installed
3) after the user chooses the components she wants installed, the
installer generates a list of packages it needs, then checks which of
these packages already exist in its directory (or the directory it was
started from), fetches the remaining packages requested and installs the
suite.

This way e.g. the magazine could put the installer and any relevant
language packs in its CD, and a large development could do just the
same. By the way, I remember some really old versions of Internet
Explorer were distributed this way (not sure about the later ones). I
think having an installer like this could satisfy almost every case. The
only potential downside to this that I see is that space usage on
mirrors could probably grow a bit, if LibO would decide to provide full
bundles as an alternative to this option. But OTOH, this could also be
avoided by adding an option in the installer to only download files for
off-line installation (or by distributing those full bundles on a
smaller amount of mirrors). In short, there are lots of options here.
All we need is someone to volunteer to implement this.

Regards,
Rimas

#6

Rimas Kudelis a écrit :

Hello all,

2011.08.23 13:49, Javier Sola rašė:

Hi Javier, *,

Will single language packages not be made available, as was the case
with
OpenOffice before?

Yes, it was a deliberate decision to only provide one single installer
with all languages for Windows.

I am trying to understand the logic of this.

1.- Single package for all languages + separate packs for help:

- They occupy less in the servers, because there are no complete
installers for each language.
- The installer is in English (a foreign language in most cases).
- Users must install all least two packages.
- Requires post-handling of language settings (in English, most
usually a foreign language).
- Requires understanding how to do this. Definitely not what beginners
want.
2.- Single packages for each language:

- They occupy more space in servers.
- They use the standard practice in most software of one installer for
the application.
  - They are in the local language in most cases.
- If well done, they do not require post-handling of language settings.
- A beginner can install the application in her/his own language
without much fuzz.

Some users, in developed countries, download installers from the web.
In developing countries, they do not have the bandwith to do this,
distribution is through CDs.
For large installations, it is always done through CDs or network.

Would it not be interesting to facilitate the labor of distribution by
producing packages that are easier to install by everybody (single
installers fully in local language)? For most of the people that we
work with (school teachers who do not speak English), the difference
is between being able to do it or not.

There is also a third approach that I keep reminding people of: a
modular installer. IMO, it would bring the best of two worlds, but it
would require someone to spend time implementing it. Here's how it would
work:
1) the user downloads a single file.
    option a) it's a *small* installer file. This file only contains the
installer code, license, and configuration data, but no packages.
    option b) it's a bundle, which contains the above file (the actual
installer) and a few default packages (e.g. the suite and en-US
language pack). When started, it unpacks all files into some folder (as
is done now), then launches the actual installer.
2) when started, the actual installer allows the user to choose the
components to be installed
3) after the user chooses the components she wants installed, the
installer generates a list of packages it needs, then checks which of
these packages already exist in its directory (or the directory it was
started from), fetches the remaining packages requested and installs the
suite.

This way e.g. the magazine could put the installer and any relevant
language packs in its CD, and a large development could do just the
same. By the way, I remember some really old versions of Internet
Explorer were distributed this way (not sure about the later ones). I
think having an installer like this could satisfy almost every case. The
only potential downside to this that I see is that space usage on
mirrors could probably grow a bit, if LibO would decide to provide full
bundles as an alternative to this option. But OTOH, this could also be
avoided by adding an option in the installer to only download files for
off-line installation (or by distributing those full bundles on a
smaller amount of mirrors). In short, there are lots of options here.
All we need is someone to volunteer to implement this.

Regards,
Rimas

I that would be an excellent way to do it.
I remember (back when I was still using Microsoft) that there were a few packages built more or less like that, which I found really convenient.
(I would download everything, so as to be able to install/uninstall modules at will.)
I don't think that this would make a lot of difference for the mirrors. (It should reduce download volume for Ms-windows versions.)
It certainly would be a lot more convenient for users.
But as you say, it awaits volonteer(s) to do it.

#7

Στις 29/10/2011 12:33 μμ, ο/η andré έγραψε:

Rimas Kudelis a écrit :

Hello all,

2011.08.23 13:49, Javier Sola rašė:

Hi Javier, *,

Will single language packages not be made available, as was the case
with
OpenOffice before?

Yes, it was a deliberate decision to only provide one single installer
with all languages for Windows.

I am trying to understand the logic of this.

1.- Single package for all languages + separate packs for help:

- They occupy less in the servers, because there are no complete
installers for each language.
- The installer is in English (a foreign language in most cases).
- Users must install all least two packages.
- Requires post-handling of language settings (in English, most
usually a foreign language).
- Requires understanding how to do this. Definitely not what beginners
want.
2.- Single packages for each language:

- They occupy more space in servers.
- They use the standard practice in most software of one installer for
the application.
  - They are in the local language in most cases.
- If well done, they do not require post-handling of language settings.
- A beginner can install the application in her/his own language
without much fuzz.

Some users, in developed countries, download installers from the web.
In developing countries, they do not have the bandwith to do this,
distribution is through CDs.
For large installations, it is always done through CDs or network.

Would it not be interesting to facilitate the labor of distribution by
producing packages that are easier to install by everybody (single
installers fully in local language)? For most of the people that we
work with (school teachers who do not speak English), the difference
is between being able to do it or not.

There is also a third approach that I keep reminding people of: a
modular installer. IMO, it would bring the best of two worlds, but it
would require someone to spend time implementing it. Here's how it would
work:
1) the user downloads a single file.
    option a) it's a *small* installer file. This file only contains the
installer code, license, and configuration data, but no packages.
    option b) it's a bundle, which contains the above file (the actual
installer) and a few default packages (e.g. the suite and en-US
language pack). When started, it unpacks all files into some folder (as
is done now), then launches the actual installer.
2) when started, the actual installer allows the user to choose the
components to be installed
3) after the user chooses the components she wants installed, the
installer generates a list of packages it needs, then checks which of
these packages already exist in its directory (or the directory it was
started from), fetches the remaining packages requested and installs the
suite.

This way e.g. the magazine could put the installer and any relevant
language packs in its CD, and a large development could do just the
same. By the way, I remember some really old versions of Internet
Explorer were distributed this way (not sure about the later ones). I
think having an installer like this could satisfy almost every case. The
only potential downside to this that I see is that space usage on
mirrors could probably grow a bit, if LibO would decide to provide full
bundles as an alternative to this option. But OTOH, this could also be
avoided by adding an option in the installer to only download files for
off-line installation (or by distributing those full bundles on a
smaller amount of mirrors). In short, there are lots of options here.
All we need is someone to volunteer to implement this.

Regards,
Rimas

I that would be an excellent way to do it.
I remember (back when I was still using Microsoft) that there were a
few packages built more or less like that, which I found really
convenient.
(I would download everything, so as to be able to install/uninstall
modules at will.)
I don't think that this would make a lot of difference for the
mirrors. (It should reduce download volume for Ms-windows versions.)
It certainly would be a lot more convenient for users.
But as you say, it awaits volonteer(s) to do it.

I very much agree with the views expressed in favour of a modular installer.
When I try to think at it, from the simple user's point of view, it
sounds increasingly appealing!
Another question I would like to throw on the table (and I do apoologize
if it is a little "off the mark"), is the following:

I remember there used to be an OOo special version for kids, which imho
proved quite popular in School classes and kindergardtens.
Is there any chance that we, as LibO, could promote something simlar,
which could be named LiboKids???
Any plans perhaps to look at this, in the foreseeable future??
As I am in touch with the pre-school environement and the first
elementary classes, I would really love to see some sort of this being
promoted!

Thanks to all of you

#8

29/10/2011 10:33, sgrìobh andré:

There is also a third approach that I keep reminding people of: a
modular installer.

Whatever the approach, I'm 100% with using a way that makes installation as easy as possible, bearing in mind non-technical users and users on not-the-latest technology. It's sheer lunacy to spend all this time and effort on OS software development to then effectively restrict the pool of people who CAN use again because we didn't think through what happens when some 14 year old tries to install the X language version via her mega-slow internet connection in rural Y.

We're not all on fibre optic broadband, the latest operating system and can hold our own at some hackfest :slight_smile:

According to the LO Wikipedia page, they want 200 million users (~25 m today). Well, ambitious, but an awful lot of these will have to come from non-techy non-urban non-a-lot-of-things background. So let's cater for them.

Speaking of which, has there ever been any user testing done on the OO/LO family in terms of installtion and the GUI?

Michael

#9

Hi Michael,

29/10/2011 10:33, sgrìobh andré:

There is also a third approach that I keep reminding people of: a
modular installer.

Whatever the approach, I'm 100% with using a way that makes installation as
easy as possible, bearing in mind non-technical users and users on
not-the-latest technology. It's sheer lunacy to spend all this time and
effort on OS software development to then effectively restrict the pool of
people who CAN use again because we didn't think through what happens when
some 14 year old tries to install the X language version via her mega-slow
internet connection in rural Y.

We're not all on fibre optic broadband, the latest operating system and can
hold our own at some hackfest :slight_smile:

According to the LO Wikipedia page, they want 200 million users (~25 m
today). Well, ambitious, but an awful lot of these will have to come from
non-techy non-urban non-a-lot-of-things background. So let's cater for them.

Speaking of which, has there ever been any user testing done on the OO/LO
family in terms of installtion and the GUI?

Improving the Windows installer for individuals and corporate users is
one of the top priorities we have for improving the Windows version of
LibreOffice for the next 12 months. There were already some
discussions about it in Paris (specially about usability) and although
we are in an early stage, we will publish more information in the wiki
in the following weeks.

#10

Jesús,

29/10/2011 17:45, sgrìobh Jesús Corrius:

Improving the Windows installer for individuals and corporate users is one of the top priorities we have for improving the Windows version of LibreOffice for the next 12 months. There were already some discussions about it in Paris (specially about usability) and although we are in an early stage, we will publish more information in the wiki in the following weeks.

That's really good news, glad to hear it!

Michael

#11

Hi Kostas, *,

Another question I would like to throw on the table (and I do apoologize
if it is a little "off the mark"), is the following:

I remember there used to be an OOo special version for kids, which imho
proved quite popular in School classes and kindergardtens.

Here is a link for it:
http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page

> Is there any chance that we, as LibO, could promote something simlar,
> which could be named LiboKids???

Any plans perhaps to look at this, in the foreseeable future??
As I am in touch with the pre-school environement and the first
elementary classes, I would really love to see some sort of this being
promoted!

k-j