This works as designed. It's not a defect. For the installation of fonts admin
rights are required.

Not a defect.

Then why can OpenOffice 1.1.x be installed without admin privileges?

Why does OpenOffice 2.0 require font installation?
Can't the installation program install OpenOffice without 
the fonts when a user doesn't have admin privileges?

Because it's a new installer with new requirements and possibilities.

I realize that you have a lot of work to do and any new issues only add 
to your workload.  But requiring installation by a Windows administrator 
will prevent large numbers of people from using OpenOffice.

If font installation requires admin privileges, why can't the 
installation program just skip the font installation when 
non-admins run the installation?

But is has been decided *not* to do so. And that's why it is *not* a defect. If
you think a blue gull is not what you want to see in the icons it's also not a
defect because it has been decided to use these graphics. So if you think OOo
should install without admin rights because it prevents users from using it, who
is the user that has a PC without having admin acceess to his operating system?

First, you ask "who is the user that has a PC without having 
admin acceess to his operating system?".  Wow.  Simply asking 
that question tells us a lot about you.

You apparently don't realize that millions of people in 
medium/large companies have a Windows PC on their desk but yet 
do not have administration privileges.  And the people who 
have administration privileges are hostile or non-responsive
about installing "non-standard" software.  When OpenOffice 
decision makers are so amazing isolated from the real world, 
it isn't suprising that they make bad design decision.

Second, your blue gull analogy is terrible: changing the icon 
does not prevent people from using OpenOffice.  Requiring 
administration privileges precludes most people in large 
companies from installing OpenOffice.

Welcome to the therapist. What do you think is the reason that these people
don't have administrative rights on their PCs? Because they should not install
some software on their machines. If the administrative people are 'hostile'
about OOo, won't the million users without admin rights get hostile if they have
admin right? Is hostility boundled with administrative rights? My example is
*not* about the effect to the user, it's about calling a result a 'defect'.
Again: We have decided (similar to the blue gull example) that administratrive
rights are needed to install OOo 2.x. And *based* on this decision OOo behaves
as it does. It's not faulty programming or 'Oops forgotton' behaviour.

> What do you think is the reason that these people don't have 
> administrative rights on their PCs? Because they should not 
> install some software on their machines.

The average user is given non-administrator accounts because the administrator
doesn’t want to grant them the ability to do nefarious things such as adding
user account, disabling virus checking, accessing files of other users, etc. 
Installing OpenOffice is not nefarious and the vast majority of administrators
would not prohibit single-user OpenOffice installation.  However, they do not
want users asking the administrators to spend time installing OpenOffice, much
less pestering them every 3 months to install the OpenOffice bug fixes.

> We have decided (similar to the blue gull example) that 
> administratrive rights are needed to install OOo 2.x. And 
> *based* on this decision OOo behaves as it does. It's not 
> faulty programming or 'Oops forgotton' behaviour.

Just because you made that decision does not make it a good decision.  Apart
from font installation, the OpenOffice installation does nothing that Windows
requires admin rights.  And *based* on that, the installation program should
have supported non-admin installation.

None of the final OpenOffice 2.0 specs posted to specs.openoffice.org prohibit
the installer from supporting non-admin installation.  In fact, the 22/04/04
draft of the OpenOffice 2.0 Windows Installer GUI spec clearly supports Windows
non-admin installation.

*** Issue 53766 has been confirmed by votes. ***

There is no valuable reason to impose the need for admin privileges, for an
office  suite type of software ( whe are not talking about kernel software here
)  ?  Why dont we have the choice to install the fonts or just the software.

I dont have the admin privilige on one PC that I use and I would be happy to use
oo on that PC too.  The same works with firefox.

It is a very bad thing to decide for the user, specifically when that decision
has no impact on the PC other than preventing the use of a good product.

This bug is a dupe of #42768. Can somebody close this bug and continue on the
other one?

Still, I am also strongly against automatically aborting the install if the user
is non-admin.

The comment somebody made that non-admin inherently are not supposed to install
programs is plain wrong. Non-admin users can install almost everything they need
(unless it is some special system package) and use it without restrictions.
Openoffice, on the other hand, seems to decide what is allowed and what isn't.
Wrong, and sadly this wasn't fixed before 2.0.0 stable.

marking duplicate.

There is no automatic transfer of votes or comments. You have to move your
vote(s) yourself.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 42768 ***

closing duplicate.