Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 1307
Make /net the default (and only) installation option
Last modified: 2003-12-06 14:52:34 UTC
The subject of making /net the default installation setting was discussed on the discuss mailing list last week. (see the "why /net is needed" thread, from the middle of July). Basically, to summarize, nearly everyone (please read the archives, don't take my word for it!) agreed that the current "/net" install was non-optimal. I suggested removing it altogether, and making the default behavior be a "/net" install. S. Vesik suggested having a radio button in the installation program that would allow you to choose a "/net" installation or not. He was also afraid that OOo would lose some functionality by removing /net, that people may get confused by the effect of having (or not) a common location for the config files. (Sander, I hope I summarized your points well). I realize now that this discussion probably should have been occuring here, which is why I opened this issue. It seems to me that the only difference between a "/net" install and a "non-/net" install is whether the configuration files are installed within the directory structure of the program files (as in the case of a "non-/net" install), or the config files are stored seperately from the application files (as in a "/net" install). My thesis is the following. If we default to a "/net" install always, we can have both behaviors (location of config files relative to apps) in a natural and simple manner. When you install OOo, have it always do a /net install. Then, you would always have to run "setup" to build your config files. If you performed both steps as the same user, and choose to install OOo into ~/openoffice6, you will have your config files and apps in the same location. If you installed OOo as a privileged user and then run setup as a different user, you will have the apps and config files separate. This is the way most all other applications work, and it would make OOo's installation much simpler. In fact, I don't think any of this really needs to be explained to people. They simply choose where to install the apps, and the rest falls out as a natural consequence of that choice. For example: if I want to install Mozilla for my own personal use, I install it into ~/mozilla. I don't need to talk to the sysadm of the system, and I have complete control of the application. If I want to install it as a shared app for all the users of the system, I will need to (as root) install it into /usr/local/mozilla/ (for example) and give the users +rx access to those files. Then, when I run the app for the first time, it sets up my personal config files. It is simple, as it is the way most applications function. Comments?
Hi Falko, some thoughts to setup.
To bev honest I don't see any necessity for changing this behaviour! Most private(!) users will not need (think of 90% Windows users!!). And in companies I am sure that Admins are capable of using the /net switch per default.
*** Issue 1940 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
falko: you just marked my bug 1940 as a duplicate of this one. I can only partially agree with that: I want not only to have -net as default, as it would make things not less confusing and is simply the wrong way to do it. I want to make it possible to switch it on and off within the graphical installer. I also see this bug "resolved wontfix" because of reasons which are obviously wrong. 1. "Most private(!) users will not need (think of 90% Windows users!!)." This is wrong. Under Linux/Unix the usual way of installing software is to install it as root and use it as normal user. When installed wrong OO/SO will not start at all. Even under windows (even at home more user installs gets more and more common and will show this problem. 2. "And in companies I am sure that Admins are capable of using the /net switch per default" In smaller companies the admin is usually just a normal user with a bit more experience then the rest. To expect him to be able to find a function which is hidden so well is something a user friendly program shouldn't do. Even more advanced (and well paid) admins should not need to spend more time with your program then necessary. To burden those admins with a problem which simply shouldn't be there is also a very bad idea. Falko, we are talking here about one of SO/OOs worst usability problems, which alone would cost SO/OO a certain percentage of users if it survives until the final version. Therfore this bug should be a high priority bug!! Read in the newsgroups, read in the mailing lists, everywhere you see people stumpled over this bug. Either you reopen my bug 1940 (recommended), or this one. Keeping it "wontfix" is just wrong.
I think almost everybody does not like the current /net issue and it was more or less decided to change it. Users new to SO/OO will never know how to install it the right way. This *needs* to be changed.
bjoern: I think that issue 1940 is now the bug where this stuff is handled...
Jens-Uwe is right. Please refer to issue 1940. BTW, if this issue is so important as you stated, why are there nil votes on it??? *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 1940 ***
Falko- "BTW, if this issue is so important as you stated, why are there nil votes on it???" Thank you for the condescending comment. It is so refreshing to work with a group of professionals. I'm realizing now that it really isn't worth the effort to try to be involved in the OOo community. Reread my original comment, there was a lot of effort in writing that. Before filing this bug there were a few long threads with many people on the mailing list, at which time I was requested by *Sun employees* to file a bug. This contribution is met by Falko's two responses, the first that this problem doesn't affect windows (there is a world outside of MS!) users so why change, and the above quoted gem. Thanks again! PS: I was just trying to help, it won't happen again. -Jon
.