Issue 11299 - Network install Vs Local install is confusing ...
Summary: Network install Vs Local install is confusing ...
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Installation
Classification: Application
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.0.0
Hardware: PC Linux, all
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-02-07 15:49 UTC by moy
Modified: 2013-02-07 22:36 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description moy 2003-02-07 15:49:00 UTC 
Hi !

I like the feature Network install or Local install, but this corresponds only
to a very precise case, and can be somehow confusing in other cases :

If I have a system on which /usr/local is really local, and /home is a NFS
mount, then, the feature "local installation" actually does a network install !

If I have a personnal computer without network, then, the notion of network
install is a nonsense.

The algorithm should look like this (Suppose the global OOo installation is in
/usr/local/OOo):

if ( /usr/local/OOo is a network volume ) {
   Offer the two options as it is done now;
} else {
   do a local installation;
}

The "open" dialog box of OOo is able to recognize network connections, so, the
installer should be able to know whether the installation is started from a
network disk or not.

A beginner in computer science will be affraid to have to answer a question
about network, whereas we could have answered for him ...
Comment 1 Olaf Felka 2003-02-10 15:05:01 UTC 
I think it's not clear whow setup will look for upcomming versions:
it's discussed to use native installers. I think we should change some
namings if possible.
Comment 2 gimpy 2003-02-18 06:18:28 UTC 
How about offering 3 options:

1.  Single User Installation (for Windows 9x-type of computers)
2.  Multi-User Computer Installation (for Windows NT/2000/XP and Linux OSes)
3.  Network Server Installation (Windows and Linux server-based installs)

-JA
Comment 3 moy 2003-02-18 07:01:21 UTC 
Not really sufficient I think.

In most cases, what you want is to have one full installation and some
local copies of only option files. This is valid for both network
install and local install, except if the full installation is done on
a slow NFS server or a temporary connected server and you want to copy
everything on your local machine. This is a very specific case and
should be introduced as so.
Comment 4 hramrach 2005-01-23 21:49:02 UTC 
It is really confusing. 
 
"network installation" = installation. Should be the default. Most systems are 
multiuser anyway and it does not break single user. It's local wheon on local 
disk. 
 
"local installation" = nonsense. Even on windows 95 the single user has a 
profile for storing preferences and can use the normal installtion. It is no 
more local than the first case. 
 
"workstation installation" = setting user preferences/personalization. Should 
install only preference files. Most of them can be probably copied from the 
installed defaults only after they are changed by the user. No installation at 
all. 
 
The possibility to copy the installation to local disk for offline use (in case 
the installation was really a network one) is good. It preserves 
coices/modifications done by the administrator during the original 
installation. Should be possible to do even after the user user personalization 
has been performed already. It could be possibly done by re-running the setup?
Comment 5 bettina.haberer 2010-05-21 15:04:44 UTC 
To grep the issues easier via "requirements" I put the issues currently lying on
my owner to the owner "requirements".