Apache OpenOffice Community Forum

Release Candidate 1 for OpenOffice.org version 2.3.1 was put on the main site for download yesterday.

This being the second release now that includes not only the executable installer for Windows but RPM and DEB file format files for Linux.

You can find the files at
http://download.openoffice.org/680/inde ... ntcmp=1235

First impression is that it is a pretty stable release.

OOo 2.3.1 final is available at:______

Thanks, but I don't think it's appropriate to post links to alternate download sites.

The official release will allow mirror sites, release notes and MD5SUMS to be ready and we can be sure people are getting the correct files. There are just too many file-downloading issues for us to be promoting un-official sites.

Other opinions? If you disagree, just explain why. Maybe I'm off base here.

acknak wrote:Thanks, but I don't think it's appropriate to post links to alternate download sites.

The official release will allow mirror sites, release notes and MD5SUMS to be ready and we can be sure people are getting the correct files. There are just too many file-downloading issues for us to be promoting un-official sites.

Other opinions? If you disagree, just explain why. Maybe I'm off base here.

I do disagree. I think that since this is software libre, that freedom should extend to the sites people choose to download from. For example, I'm currently using Go-OO, would my posting a link to that site be considered "unofficial" and hence subject to deletion? I also like using OOo dev-builds downloaded from an FTP site in the .cz domain, which would again be deleted under your rules. Rather than acting as nanny/dictator, I think a better approach would simply be to provide clear caveats, explaining why the "official" sites may be considered preferable, and allow our adult users to make up their own minds. There will be varying degrees of profiency and comfort with software installation among users here, and it seems to me that the best way to cater to that is to educate and inform those who may be best served by sticking to the mainstream channels, while not depriving other users of the opportunity to test other sources, something definitely not proscribed under the licence OOo uses.

Either way, OOo 2.3.1 has been officially released on the site now, so i guess the subject is moot untill march next year

acknak wrote:Thanks, but I don't think it's appropriate to post links to alternate download sites.

The official release will allow mirror sites, release notes and MD5SUMS to be ready and we can be sure people are getting the correct files. There are just too many file-downloading issues for us to be promoting un-official sites.

+1.
Some bugs have also been reported on the French forum with downloads from third parties sites. Better not take any risk.
Note that Go-OO is not so un-official, it's just a different build. Some users are not so 'adult' and when they want something, they just click on the first link available. So what if they get problems from a link posted here ?

Hagar de l'Est wrote:

acknak wrote:Thanks, but I don't think it's appropriate to post links to alternate download sites.
they just click on the first link available.

Those "unofficial" sites will almost certainly never be "the first link available." As in this announcement thread, the alternate link was several posts down. "The first link available" was the OpenOffice.org link. It still smacks of nannyism to me.

maxqnz wrote:As in this announcement thread, the alternate link was several posts down. "The first link available" was the OpenOffice.org link.

Sorry, but it is the second. So if you skip the first one, you just see... the second one.

Hagar de l'Est wrote:

maxqnz wrote:As in this announcement thread, the alternate link was several posts down. "The first link available" was the OpenOffice.org link.

Sorry, but it is the second. So if you skip the first one, you just see... the second one.

The matter is of little importance to me, but you seem to be shifting the parameters of the discussion. Initially you said that these

not so 'adult'

users would

just click on the first link available

. Now you're saying that they might

skip the first one

. Since the subject under discussion is not only moot, but apparently very fluid in definition, I'll opt out. Salaam!

Between 2 options, which one is really the first ? The first in sorting order or the first you see (that can be the 2nd in fact) ??? OK, I should have said 'one of the first'. Aren't you too much picky here ?

First, I agree: editing (or censoring, if you like) posts is not a good thing. People should be able to post whatever they want... up to a point. I certainly am not suggesting a ban on links that are not "blessed" by oo.org.

In this case, the link posted was to a commercial file downloading site, before the official release was even announced. Also, this was the user's first post. That was enough to make me a little suspicious that this might be a spam or scam of some kind. As such, I decided to remove the link. If it was legitimate, removing it would do little harm; if not...

In any case, here is the link: fileforum.betanews.com

I admit that I have a rather low opinion of such sites, so perhaps my personal bias is showing through here.

Go-OOo is at least a well-known community-oriented site. I have no idea who 'betanews.com' is, but it looks like they are primarily about selling ads, and so I'm not inclined to go out on a limb to give them a free link.

I appreciate the input here; thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I usually get the updates or upgrades for the programs I use from this site, betanews, http://fileforum.betanews.com/, and I also contribute with comments sometimes.
I have downloaded dozens of programs from this site, never I have had any problem.
Besides, it is very useful to be able to check for updates on only one place. For example, today I saw an upgrade is available for Sun ODF Plugin for MS Office. It is difficult to get this information from the jungle of OOo-related websites.

Cool. Thanks for the follow-up.

I used to use betanews years ago and always found it good. As well as being a central place for catching new releases, it was often the main or only outlet for small developers who didn't have a site of their own.