Request: Installation Instructions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
111 messages Options
Next » 123456 « Prev
Italo Vignoli-2 Italo Vignoli-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

Rene Engelhard wrote:

> There is no goddamn need for it. (That Ubuntu people in 90% of cases have
> no clue how they do basic system tasks doesn't make it more needed)

Please do consider that Ubuntu has allowed people like me to switch to
Linux, although I still feel I have to use the terminal too frequently
(being the ideal frequence equal to never).

I do not even think about installing a software if I have to open the
terminal, and I am considered a geek in my professional environment of
marketers.

So, I think that any user guide that makes it easier for computer
illiterates to install a software is always welcome, provided that I
will not install LibreOffice until is available in a repository that I
can access via Ubuntu Tweak (but there are computer illiterates which
are less illiterate than me, and they accept to use the terminal).

Please do remember that developers are not representing the average
LibreOffice user, and user requests are usually important because they
give us very important informations on how the software is perceived and
used.

So, as a Steering Committee member, and as one of TDF spokepersons, I
would really like to see these installation instructions for the basic
illiterate Linux user. I might even end up installing LibreOffice even
if it is not in a repository.

--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: [hidden email]
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: [hidden email]

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Wheatbix Wheatbix
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Friedrich Strohmaier
> You were responding *my* mail not referring to my contents.
> Friedrich

I am new to this mailing list thing. I use Gmail and I reply by
clicking the 'reply' space at the very bottom of the conversation
list.
How are you able to tell which message I reply to? And what should I
be doing to ensure that the message gets to it's intended target?
But thanks for the tip.

Yes I was most defininately referring to Rene's comments.
I have experienced a similar type of arrogance amongst 2 other open
source projects, one of which was resolved quickly and resolutely by
it's members actively denouncing such attitudes within the community.

Thanks again,
Michael Wheatland

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

jonathon-3 jonathon-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/22/2010 03:07 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:

> Because dpkg -i *.deb is esssentialy setup.exe.

That would be true if, and only if there was _one_ deb to install, in
which gdeb would by used, not dpkg.

>Don't tell me anyone using Windows must not know setup.exe to install
software?

Out in the world of Joe Sixpack, autoexec.run on the CD/DVD/BluRay is
the program that installs software.

> There is no goddamn need for it.

By that token, there in no need for _any_ program, on any os, other than
emacs.

>(That Ubuntu people in 90% of cases have no clue how they do basic
system tasks doesn't make it more needed)

That lack of knowledge makes it imperative that that how to install the
files be included.  If that includes an explanation of how to use dpkg,
so be it.

To do otherwise is to alienate the program from those that are dipping
in the world of FLOSS.


jonathon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6qD/AAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/FvAH/jVvHm75AWpD3C+fvR+r8v9X
fqENJXfEwvZI6GnSWoO6HUPkuL2QT+CG1ga1PlPJl2uhZRijstQYw3EmlSGLpWCY
pKCrdxz+i9cLXodelJXZApbOD95OYVX+xnffAA6MhPTiKuoudR0K6NhGquUHaAoY
XH445+Nvk4CEjdug/0QcLO8Yle69AcbYRSlYCcGfH5vvoyvIBJJZAKLyCPQBMPFS
9VRp8w1iGC2K82x5w1lcVt88+iazILWxQHcKiTjtF8QEs6iBsNqsgEBYy2Dfkitb
ylkRv70WdXP31EkZPapwpGXuw82qyICNxnxoTKB0Y1QUk575AKHIJcRlz1R9aSQ=
=+Roi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Rene Engelhard-3 Rene Engelhard-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Lee Hyde
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:52:41PM +0000, Lee Hyde wrote:
> original poster is making. Windows users are presented with a single
> setup.exe while debian/ubuntu users are presented with a multitude of
> individual .deb files. This is not user friendly!

Nonsense. dpkg -i *.deb is user friendly, despite what you want to claim.
That graphical tools might make it difficult is no argument.

> On 22/11/10 15:07, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > There is no goddamn need for it. (That Ubuntu people in 90% of cases have
> > no clue how they do basic system tasks doesn't make it more needed)
>
> This is a rather hostile attitude to show towards end users and an

If those end users don't think, yes, you're right.

> based operating systems in the past. If your position were to be taken
> to its logical conclusion we should scrap LibreOffice, which afterall is
> pandering to the masses with its use of GUI and WYSIWYG, in favour of TeX.

No, my position taken to the logical conclusion would not be that (as I think
there's use cases for GUIs - I didn't say anything against them here but just
mentioned that dpkg is basics - we don't need GUIs but that we need a "drivers license"
for computers. Mandatory for everyone who wants to use PCs.

The same as if you would not be allowed to drive a car if you don't know where
the steering wheel or the gas pedal is, neither would you be allowed to use a gear car
when you only know automatic.

Learn basics, or live with people telling you that you need to look at basics before
you do stuff.

Grüße/Regards,

René

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Rene Engelhard-3 Rene Engelhard-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:50:36PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:52:41PM +0000, Lee Hyde wrote:
> > original poster is making. Windows users are presented with a single
> > setup.exe while debian/ubuntu users are presented with a multitude of
> > individual .deb files. This is not user friendly!
>
> Nonsense. dpkg -i *.deb is user friendly, despite what you want to claim.
> That graphical tools might make it difficult is no argument.

Beisde that, you agree that .deb is what users should know. How on earth are they
then NOT to know how to install them? (And install all of debs one program consists
of?)

If we follow your thinking, there would be NO dependencies at all allowed and every
app needs to include every possible piece of software it needs - be it (security-)buggsy,
grossly oudated, unstable or whatever) just to please users.

[ Disclaimer: The packages which get out of the installer and are in that .tar.gz DO suck.
I don't deny that. I wholeheartly agree with you that THEY are user-unfriendly. dpkg is not. ]

Grüße/Regards,

René

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Rene Engelhard-3 Rene Engelhard-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Italo Vignoli-2
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 04:56:40PM +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote:
> So, I think that any user guide that makes it easier for computer
> illiterates to install a software is always welcome, provided that I
> will not install LibreOffice until is available in a repository that
> I can access via Ubuntu Tweak (but there are computer illiterates
> which are less illiterate than me, and they accept to use the
> terminal).

WTF is Ubuntu Tweak? *looking* omg. Annd that super-duper usable Ubuntu
doesn't have a tool equivalent to dpkg -i *.deb? Don't believe so really
(or they failed their goal more than I ever thought)

(Besides that, it is already in a Debian repository)

> basic illiterate Linux user. I might even end up installing
> LibreOffice even if it is not in a repository.

True. That doesn't contradict knowing basics of the OS you use, though.

I didn't claim people installing LibO need to know every detail of  their
system.

Grüße/Regards,

René

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Friedrich Strohmaier Friedrich Strohmaier
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3
Hi René, *,

René Engelhard schrieb:

>On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:15:25PM +0100, Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:

>> So you'd recommend everybody just running a desktop machine and not
>> wanting to get a full featured serveradmin to abhore debian?

>No, I want desktop users to know how to use their system. And if they
>also administer it they should know basics about dpkg.

>> >http://packages.debian.org/libreoffice FTR.

>> I can't see this hint an useful answer to the OP's question
>> regarding his aparent debian knowledge.

>True, but those are debs he can install if he used squeeze or sid :)

From a geeks point of view You are right. But I'm shure that it is not a
good idea to make all people out there geeks before using a computer or
using office software ;o)).

So I heavily hope, that LibreOffice will leave it's past behind and
will grow from a developer driven software to a community driven one.

:o)))

Gruß/regards
--
Friedrich
Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/
LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images
(german version already started)




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Lee Hyde Lee Hyde
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3


On 22/11/10 17:50, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:52:41PM +0000, Lee Hyde wrote:
> Nonsense. dpkg -i *.deb is user friendly, despite what you want to claim.
> That graphical tools might make it difficult is no argument.
>
It is obvious that the dpkg method described is a more involved
proceedure than a meta-package or installation script. Like it or not
Rene the icon metaphor is the predominant UI paradigm in modern
operating systems. That may one day change, but I cannot see the command
line supplanting it.

On 22/11/10 17:50, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> If those end users don't think, yes, you're right.
>

I was not aware of the aforementioned dpkg method myself, and trust me
I'm no fool I'm simply not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the
linux command line. Nor do I have the time and/or inclination to do so
for such a trivial use-case as software installation.

On 22/11/10 17:50, Rene Engelhard wrote:

> No, my position taken to the logical conclusion would not be that (as I think
> there's use cases for GUIs - I didn't say anything against them here but just
> mentioned that dpkg is basics - we don't need GUIs but that we need a "drivers license"
> for computers. Mandatory for everyone who wants to use PCs.
>
> The same as if you would not be allowed to drive a car if you don't know where
> the steering wheel or the gas pedal is, neither would you be allowed to use a gear car
> when you only know automatic.
>
> Learn basics, or live with people telling you that you need to look at basics before
> you do stuff.

This is an absolutely horrendous view to hold! Such patronising views
only serve to hold back the FOSS community. Strange as it may seem to
you Rene, many are intimedated by the command line. They shouldn't be,
but they are, and your above comments will do nothing to assuage such
end-users. In fact there more likely to turn back to Windows or MacOSX
than adapt to your way of thinking/doing. Some of us like our icon
metaphors and prefer our double-click > install to your open terminal >
navigate to directory > dpkg -i *.deb.

Also, The reason that people are required to qualify for a driving
license before driving a car is that behind the wheel of a car a bad
driver can easily kill a fellow road-user/cyclist/pedestrian. Now unless
the 1980s film 'War Games' was an accurate representation of computing
the same cannot be said of a technophobic office worker, in fact if
anything they be better off staying well clear of the command line.

I'm afraid that your patronizing 'get orf my land you idiot' mentality
will serve only to exclude the vast majority of end-users, as it has in
the past, and without a significant user base LibreOffice will
degenerate into little more than a hobby project and rightly so (if it
chooses to alienate the majority of computer users instead of embrace them).

--
"Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel."

        -- Ernesto 'Che' Guevara


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3
Hi, :-)

I am ROFL reading this thread. :-D

Rene, I'll write that how-to this week, notably for Ubuntu users, and
then - if it's OK with you - I'll send you the draft with any
questions I have regarding Debian.

We could also include instructions about how to *de-install* an
already-installed beta 2.

Would that be OK with you?

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Rene Engelhard-3 Rene Engelhard-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Friedrich Strohmaier
Hi,

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 07:34:13PM +0100, Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:
> From a geeks point of view You are right. But I'm shure that it is not a
> good idea to make all people out there geeks before using a computer or
> using office software ;o)).

Ah, so we should let people not care about their PCs, how to use it, keep it safe
etc. and thus affecting all, spreading viruses, spam and having botnets active?

> So I heavily hope, that LibreOffice will leave it's past behind and
> will grow from a developer driven software to a community driven one.

What the hell does that have to do with people using PCs getting their basics straight?
Correctly, it doesn't.
(Otherwise I agree with you, we can argue about marketing and I agree for some deeper
features you need docs, but come on, are you also going to tell people on how to use their
mouse?)

Grüße/Regards,

René

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Lee Hyde Lee Hyde
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3


On 22/11/10 17:58, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>
> Beisde that, you agree that .deb is what users should know. How on earth are they
> then NOT to know how to install them? (And install all of debs one program consists
> of?)
>
I'm but a lowly Ubuntu user Rene, and I usually favour the use of
repositories which should nominally include all dependencies. But when
no repository is forth coming, as is the case with LibO (x86-64) I am
forced to slum it and use .deb files. The usual behavior when
double-clicking a .deb file is for the software centre to launch and
offer me the oppertunity to install (almost identical to setup.exe and
installer in windows) but since LibO consists of multiple dependencies
software centre throws a bit of a hissy fit regarding unresolvable
dependencies; it seems to me that a meta package and/or a script that
installs the whole suite would be preferable to directing the user to
open a terminal, navigate to the directory containing the .deb files and
type 'dpkg -i *.deb'.

But then again, I am but a humble Ubuntu user!


On 22/11/10 17:58, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> If we follow your thinking, there would be NO dependencies at all allowed and every
> app needs to include every possible piece of software it needs - be it (security-)buggsy,
> grossly oudated, unstable or whatever) just to please users.
>
> [ Disclaimer: The packages which get out of the installer and are in that .tar.gz DO suck.
> I don't deny that. I wholeheartly agree with you that THEY are user-unfriendly. dpkg is not. ]
>
I have no problem with dpkg at all, and I will likely use it to install
LibO whenever I get around to it. But most end users are not as
inquisitive as I when presented with what, to the uninitiated, looks
like dozens of separate installers and will either try to install each
package one by one (and be thwarted by errors) or give up. Now we can
either accept that reality and provide a simpler means of installing
LibO (a repository, a meta-package, an install script, etc...) or we can
edit the ReadMe to reflect the dpkg method for installation (and hope
the average end user will look to the ReadMe) or we can do both. I
favour the latter myself.


--
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

        -- Dr. Samuel Johnson (April 7th, 1775)


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Rene Engelhard-3 Rene Engelhard-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by davidnelson
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:55:22AM +0800, David Nelson wrote:
> I am ROFL reading this thread. :-D

You obviously are not thinking about the big picture, otherwise you wouldn't
laugh.

> Rene, I'll write that how-to this week, notably for Ubuntu users, and
> then - if it's OK with you - I'll send you the draft with any
> questions I have regarding Debian.
>
> We could also include instructions about how to *de-install* an
> already-installed beta 2.
>
> Would that be OK with you?

No, because both of those docs are unneeded. Do whatever you want for the distro
which should be died - not for this reason, though but others - but disconnect
me please from thoose propagdandists. Thanks.

Grüße/Regards,

René

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Carl Symons Carl Symons
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Lee Hyde
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Lee Hyde <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
<cut>

>
> On 22/11/10 17:50, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>> No, my position taken to the logical conclusion would not be that (as I think
>> there's use cases for GUIs - I didn't say anything against them here but just
>> mentioned that dpkg is basics - we don't need GUIs but that we need a "drivers license"
>> for computers. Mandatory for everyone who wants to use PCs.
>>
>> The same as if you would not be allowed to drive a car if you don't know where
>> the steering wheel or the gas pedal is, neither would you be allowed to use a gear car
>> when you only know automatic.
>>
>> Learn basics, or live with people telling you that you need to look at basics before
>> you do stuff.
>
> This is an absolutely horrendous view to hold! Such patronising views
> only serve to hold back the FOSS community. Strange as it may seem to
> you Rene, many are intimedated by the command line. They shouldn't be,
> but they are, and your above comments will do nothing to assuage such
> end-users. In fact there more likely to turn back to Windows or MacOSX
> than adapt to your way of thinking/doing. Some of us like our icon
> metaphors and prefer our double-click > install to your open terminal >
> navigate to directory > dpkg -i *.deb.
>
> Also, The reason that people are required to qualify for a driving
> license before driving a car is that behind the wheel of a car a bad
> driver can easily kill a fellow road-user/cyclist/pedestrian. Now unless
> the 1980s film 'War Games' was an accurate representation of computing
> the same cannot be said of a technophobic office worker, in fact if
> anything they be better off staying well clear of the command line.
>
> I'm afraid that your patronizing 'get orf my land you idiot' mentality
> will serve only to exclude the vast majority of end-users, as it has in
> the past, and without a significant user base LibreOffice will
> degenerate into little more than a hobby project and rightly so (if it
> chooses to alienate the majority of computer users instead of embrace them).
>
> --

+1, Lee.

It would be good if people understood the tools that they use. But
they don't. And they won't. And they shouldn't have to in order to use
basic communication tools such as LibreOffice.

Expecting people to have a "license to compute" is quixotic. It is
simply not going to happen. There is no good reason to make
LibreOffice installation any more difficult than other run-of-the-mill
applications, whatever platform is involved.

Rene, (cordially) Your attitude seems more appropriate to a radical
LUGr or a Microsoft plant than to a group that is trying to get some
liftoff force for a F/OSS project that has a lot of potential. How is
it part of the DocumentFoundation mission to change people's basic
software installation habit?

There are plenty enough hurdles without trying to force behavior
changes artificially. What could you do to help the project succeed?

Carl

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Lee Hyde Lee Hyde
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3

On 22/11/10 18:18, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Annd that super-duper usable Ubuntu
> doesn't have a tool equivalent to dpkg -i *.deb? Don't believe so really
> (or they failed their goal more than I ever thought)
>

FWI To the best of my knowledge Ubuntu used to use dpkg to handle .deb
files but this is now handled by the software centre. It does seem that
the software centre is not set up to handle a multi-package installation
but it is a young application.

I may file a bug on this, it would be preferable for the software centre
to search the original directory for dependencies and/or allow the end
user to manually locate any dependencies that are not resolvable.

On 22/11/10 18:18, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> (Besides that, it is already in a Debian repository)
>

Is this Debian repository a dedicated LibO repository or does it contain
other packages? Does it include 64-bit builds of LibO?

--
"There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

        -- Dr. Jonas Stalk, on being asked who owned the patent for his polio
vaccine



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3
Hi, :-)

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:07, Rene Engelhard
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> No, because both of those docs are unneeded. Do whatever you want for the distro
> which should be died - not for this reason, though but others - but disconnect
> me please from thoose propagdandists. Thanks.

OK, sure, no worries. I'll figure it. ;-)

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Rene Engelhard-3 Rene Engelhard-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Lee Hyde
Hi,

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 07:12:52PM +0000, Lee Hyde wrote:
> Is this Debian repository a dedicated LibO repository or does it contain
> other packages? Does it include 64-bit builds of LibO?

Other packages, too, but it also is priorized that way that you need to explicitly
select what you want. And yes, it does contain almost all archs OOo runs on:

 libreoffice | 1:3.3.0~beta3-2 | experimental | source, amd64, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, powerpc, sparc

ARM building right now, S390 failing because of perl, MIPS not yet built.

Besides that, there's also the publically announced http://people.debian.org/~rene/libreoffice/3.3.0.

64bit builds will ~always be the first to be there, since that is my work machine.

Grüße/Regards,

René

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Charles Marcus Charles Marcus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3
On 2010-11-22 10:07 AM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> There is no goddamn need for it.

And there's no need for profanity either...

--

Best regards,

Charles Marcus

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Robert Holtzman Robert Holtzman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Rene Engelhard-3
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:50:36PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:52:41PM +0000, Lee Hyde wrote:
> > original poster is making. Windows users are presented with a single
> > setup.exe while debian/ubuntu users are presented with a multitude of
> > individual .deb files. This is not user friendly!
>
> Nonsense. dpkg -i *.deb is user friendly, despite what you want to claim.
> That graphical tools might make it difficult is no argument.

           ..........snip.........

Whether it's user friendly or not depends on the user. If he/she/it is
open to learning a *few* new things, it is extremely user friendly.
There is, however, a segment of the population that actively resists
learning *anything*.


--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
 check the price of the beer"

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Rene Engelhard-3 Rene Engelhard-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:28:54PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> open to learning a *few* new things, it is extremely user friendly.
> There is, however, a segment of the population that actively resists
> learning *anything*.

And that's a problem.

Grüße/Regards,

René

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

eskroni eskroni
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request: Installation Instructions

In reply to this post by Wheatbix
Hello Michael,

Am Tue, 23 Nov 2010 01:30:19 +0930
schrieb Michael Wheatland <[hidden email]>:

> > You were responding *my* mail not referring to my contents.
> > Friedrich
>
> I am new to this mailing list thing. I use Gmail and I reply by
> clicking the 'reply' space at the very bottom of the conversation
> list.

Don't worry, everyone here was once new to this "mailing list
thing". :)

> How are you able to tell which message I reply to? And what should I
> be doing to ensure that the message gets to it's intended target?
> But thanks for the tip.

Every email contains a header like this:
In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
(this is copied from your mail). :) So if you use a "proper" email
client, the client can sort the emails where they belong and you can
see who replied to which comment of another user.

If you want to reply to a specific mail (that isn't the last email in
the conversation list), then use the other reply button that is on the
top right corner of that specific email.

You will then see, that gmail quotes the correct mail content and you
can comment to the specific paragraphs.
 
> Yes I was most defininately referring to Rene's comments.
> I have experienced a similar type of arrogance amongst 2 other open
> source projects, one of which was resolved quickly and resolutely by
> it's members actively denouncing such attitudes within the community.

Yes, I agree with you, arrogance doesn't help this project. But I
guess, René (btw, he is (was?) the Debian maintainer for OOo, and I
guess, he will maintain LibO for Debian too) has seen similar questions
too much and many people aren't willing to learn something new. So I can
understand, that he lost patience. But this is no excuse, since I've
seen this question only once here.

Sigrid

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Next » 123456 « Prev