Apache OpenOffice Community Forum

I have installed Ubuntu 8.10 (I think??). I am trying to install Open Office 3. Good god, how difficult can installing software be. It was a dream to install on my Vista based desktop. I can't believe the amount of intervention required just to install according to the OO installation guide. I have given up. I have been using computers for 25 years. Linux takes me back to having to program everything and issuing complex syntax commands at OS prompts. I can see why this is not taking off.

Have you seen this: [Tutorial] Installing OOo on Ubuntu, Debian and Co.

ehm, if you just installed Ubuntu Openoffice should already be there, it gets installed by default. It's a slightly different version form the one available on the OO.org website but unless you're advanced user you;re not likely to notice the difference.

Yes, but it's 2.4 not 3. Or is there some wierd numbering convention that means Ubuntu's OO 2.4 is the same as the 'standard OO3?

Yes, but it's 2.4 not 3. Or is there some wierd numbering convention that means Ubuntu's OO 2.4 is the same as the 'standard OO3?

Yes, it's almost the same. They changed the fundamental structure to prepare for future changes. On the surface it is the same program.

It was a dream to install on my Vista based desktop.

This is nice to hear. Most of this forum's install issues are related to Vista and hardly any of us volunteers is experienced with Vista. May be you can help out a little in the Windows forum?

You're certainly correct that installing software in Linux can be a confusing hassle, but just so we're clear, this is not a Linux problem, as such. The problem you're complaining about is due to a decision by the OO.org maintainers to not distribute Linux packages in the most convenient fashion.

If you install OOo from your distribution's packages, as opposed to installing the OO.org packages, it can be even easier to install than it is on Windows, and far easier to update.

And if you do use the OO.org packages, you get far greater flexibility for the price of typing a few commands. Try installing more than one version of OOo under Windows: it's just as big a nuisance as installing on Linux--maybe more. I have five versions of OOo currently installed on my Linux system, with relatively little effort.

alan8477 wrote:Yes, but it's 2.4 not 3. Or is there some wierd numbering convention that means Ubuntu's OO 2.4 is the same as the 'standard OO3?

Fedora 10 comes with OOo 3.0

Linux is really simple to use- you just don't understand it. The more experience you have with windows, the more it hinders you, because think you know how to do it, or how it should work.
I can suggest this article: Windows is not Linux, because, well, it isn't. Not necessary better, of course. But really, really different. It took me almost a year to start laughing at my Windows using friends when they could not do things with their boxes I had begun to take for granted. Yes that is a long time, and no, it needn't be that way. But I too, thought I knew software because I was regularly asked by friends to tune up and clean out their Windows machines.

All it takes to install OOO 3.0 in Ubuntu Ibex (8.10) is to enable "backports" in the software repo's. It then automaticly updates to version 3.0.
Another way (*not recomended*, use the repro's instead) would be to download the ready-made ".deb" version. Installs very simple.

There has been a lot of discussion in Ubuntu community why OOO 3.0 was not included by default. Shortly said, it was for 3 reasons:
1) the date of the final release of OOO 3.0 was delayed a couple of times, and the Ubuntu developers could not count on the release to be out on time before the release of Ibex at all and
2) Because of the release of OOO 3.0 so short before the release of Ibex, there was not enough time for testing if there were no bugs and conflicts, and the Ubuntu people want to deliver a dependable, ready product (for critical environments it is much more important that it works well and keeps working, than if it is the bleeding edge latest)
3) There was no pressing need to get rid of OOO 2.4, it works fine.

One thing to learn when starting to use Linux is *there is a community* and *the help files are really meant to give good information*. So use google or man-pages, it turns up much more info than you would get with a Windows-based problem. (See the article Windows != Linux again.)

Not meaning to offend anyone, greetings to all

I am also wondering why a modern OS can't deliver an easy installation application. It can't be that I have to look up different forums to find out how to install OO 3 by typing dozens of commands into the terminal.

padawan wrote:I can suggest this article: Windows is not Linux, because, well, it isn't.

Thanks for the link, a very nice article. It gives indeed some questions that the newbee should consider first.

I'm using Linux Mint 5 (Ubuntu 8.04) and there is a learning curve with linux but once you are comfortable, there is no turning back to windows for me.
I installed 3.0 using five commands.
If you use Adept or Synaptic, installing an application is easier than windows plus to have access to gobs and gobs of opensource software.

@scrat:

typing dozens of commands into the terminal.

The Command Line Interface (CLI) looks scary at first, that is definetly true. It is one of the great strengths of Linux distributions that you *can* do everything with the CLI. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) leaves you to the mercy of the developers of that GUI. For many applications, a GUI is *optional*. That is right, you can do things through GUI, but you have to opt for it extra. That is so much more flexible than if you are bound by the options a GUI gives you.

But really, installing software in a modern Linux distribution *is very simple*.
In Ubuntu, you click in the Main menu "system", "administration" and "synaptic package manager". An easy GUI pops up, enabling you to install 22,000 software packages.
If you specifically want OOO 3.0, first go to "system, "administration", "software sources", "update-sources" and enble "intrepid-backports".
It then updates automaticly. Honestly I could not imagine how more easy it can be.

But that is not all! Synaptic (which is a graphical front-end for apt-get, so yes, you can do it from a CLI again)
will
1) Download from a secure and trusted source (Canonical)
2) Verify the package, making sure it has not been tampered with
3) check if there is any other package needed for the software you want, and download & install it as well
4) Install it neatly, without throwing files all over your harddisk
5) handle the placement of your temporary files, configuration files, settings, etc., so you don't have to search in stange directories for it.
6) keep track of all those files, so temp. files can be removed cleanly, and the system doesn't clug up
7) Keep track where the original (source) files came from, so *if you want* you can check if something is "wrong" with them.
8) Check if the software doesn't conflict with other installed software.

You don't get all that when you just install any old exe file, do you?

Yes, I know, you are used to download from a site and just install it.
But people commonly misunderstand risks they are used to. (See for an exelent article about this: http://www.schneier.com/blog/ or Schneiders book: "Schneider on security". So you are used to do this, but is is *safe*? Is it *realy easy*?

It is equivalent to walking up the street and passing a man in a car-boot sale and buying your medicine you take in. He may be there, tomorrow, or he may not... Can you check if your medicine is safe, not tempered with, prepared wel? You do not even get an ingredient list on the label! Heck, you are not even allowed to have the recipe, it is a trade secret.

The Linux way is that there is are pharmacies which are publicly known and cannot just "dissapear". You can chose which one, so they kinda compete, this gives you choise, and if you want more customer service, you can pay for this extra service. The pharmacy gives out bottles they have checked. And always gives you the recipe as well, so you can check it, and, if you can, modify it to your own needs. You may not be able or willing to, but at this pharmacy also a lot of people get their stuff *who are doctors, nurses and chemists themself!* And that means that even if you can't check if it is the right one, you can trust it because the pharmacy is constantly checked by consumers who produce medicine themself, so they will not be fooled!
At first, it may feel if you are losing "choice", but it is different.

Of course you wouldn't get medicine from anyone on the street (I hope), but please imagine how risky it is to "just install that file". Your personal data, including your creditcardnumber, personal email, photo's etc, etc, could be stolen, and spread around the internet.

It can't be that I have to look up different forums to find out how to install OO 3 by typing dozens of commands into the terminal.

As I tried to explain, there is not need to do it that way. You were looking in the wrong places, because you were thinking how you would install software on a Windows computer, and doing that on a Linux box.

For me Linux is a dream come true. I often read about people which complains about different problems (over at the Ubuntu forums for instance), but I actually find installing software on Linux easier than on Windows.

If you want a good distribution, you should go for Debian. It's a much better distribution than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is always based upon unstable versions of Debian and this is not good, I think. At the present: Lenny works good. Open Office 2.4 is standard in Lenny.

Oh, and by the way, I have been using Linux myself for 10 years now and I can say that Linux distributions are a lot more installer friendly now in comparison to what they were 10 years ago.