[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Comments? (OpenOffice.org Dictionaries)



On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 01:08:14PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > An argument against individual i18n files is that if you have an errata
> > > for OpenOffice.org, the you have to do the QA process and errata _every_
> > > single one of the i18n packages too, which is more administrative
> > > overhead.
> 
> Just take a look at the update dates on the dictionnary download page.
> They are *not* synched with oo.o releases.
> 
> In fact for some of them you could have an unchanged rpm for several FC
> releases. That screams low maintenance packages to me.
> 
> And speaking as a lowly end-user, I'd rather search a bit for a spelling
> package than learn yet another way to update my system (after
> emacs/xemacs autoupdate, moz plugins, perl cpan, java maven, and so on).
> Get real people ! Any single specialized update system will always be
> simpler than a generic one like rpm. The problem with specialized
> updaters is they pile up quicker than people can master them - even MS
> realized lately this was no way to make system administration scale. Not
> to mention they usually lack half the security/hardening features of
> rpm.

Seconded - each program having it's own auto-update/install mechanism is a 
hideous misfeature of Windows-world, lets not go there please. For example 
DicOOo doesn't seem to support proxies currently (and yes I've set up 
the proxies in OOo config) so it's unusable for me at work. Never mind 
that I seriously dislike random programs fetching stuff over the Internet 
to install something. I'd much rather see the language packs as gpg-signed 
rpm's.

	- Panu -



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]