Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where? tnx jk
On Thursday 29 September 2005 11:05 pm, James Knott wrote:
Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where?
tnx jk ========== James, That would be openoffice.org! Download the file, open it up and you'll understand it better. It's provided so that you can install it along with your other OOo.
end of line Lee
James Knott wrote:
Francesco Teodori wrote:
ftp.hosteurope.de/mirror/ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/OpenOffice.org/9.3-i386/1.9.129-0.1/ Francesco
I'm looking for v2.0 RC1, not 1.9.x. OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 was released yesterday.
bewxare, here when you speak about "RC1" most people (me, for example :-) think at SUSE Linux 10.0 RC1 :-) jdd -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr
Sorry but I just checked out openoffice.org and the rc1 is there available
for download busy downloading it now.
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:17:48 +0200, jdd sur free
James Knott wrote:
Francesco Teodori wrote:
ftp.hosteurope.de/mirror/ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/OpenOffice.org/9.3-i386/1.9.129-0.1/ Francesco I'm looking for v2.0 RC1, not 1.9.x. OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 was released yesterday.
bewxare, here when you speak about "RC1" most people (me, for example :-) think at SUSE Linux 10.0 RC1 :-)
jdd
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Sorry nothing available as of yet, normally takes a while also before
Novell is done putting their touch to it, the version that comes with 9.3
is released with Novell's own touch (to use their own words)give it a week
or perhaps two for good measurment before they have anything ready.
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:50:54 +0200, James Knott
Per Qvindesland wrote:
Sorry but I just checked out openoffice.org and the rc1 is there available for download busy downloading it now.
Yes, I know that one it available. I was hoping to install the "official" Novell/SuSE package.
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
On Friday 30 September 2005 07:29, Per Qvindesland wrote:
Quit top-posting.
--
Stop the invasion of illegal aliens swarming across our borders!
jdd sur free wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Francesco Teodori wrote:
ftp.hosteurope.de/mirror/ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/OpenOffice.org/9.3-i386/1.9.129-0.1/
Francesco
I'm looking for v2.0 RC1, not 1.9.x. OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 was released yesterday.
bewxare, here when you speak about "RC1" most people (me, for example :-) think at SUSE Linux 10.0 RC1 :-)
My original post said OpenOffice 2.0 and OpenOffice 2.0 RC1. How is it possible to get confused with that?
James Knott wrote:
My original post said OpenOffice 2.0 and OpenOffice 2.0 RC1. How is it possible to get confused with that?
openoffice beta is everywhere said as "openoffice 2" and I was reading openoffice 2 "for" RC1 not very important. however SUSE Linux 10.0 is gone to box manager a week ago or so, so it will not be any novell OOo2RC1 for 10.0. may be one for 10.1, but 10.1 is still in alpha form (don't use this distro if not only for test) - alpha 2 (of suse) in four weeks or so. jdd -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr
On Friday 30 September 2005 16:23, jdd sur free wrote:
James Knott wrote:
My original post said OpenOffice 2.0 and OpenOffice 2.0 RC1. How is it possible to get confused with that?
openoffice beta is everywhere said as "openoffice 2" and I was reading openoffice 2 "for" RC1
not very important.
however SUSE Linux 10.0 is gone to box manager a week ago or so, so it will not be any novell OOo2RC1 for 10.0.
Don't bet on it. Under pub/projects/OpenOffice.org you can find updates for 9.3 right now. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the release candidates and the eventual final version will appear there for 10.0 as well
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Friday 30 September 2005 16:23, jdd sur free wrote:
James Knott wrote:
My original post said OpenOffice 2.0 and OpenOffice 2.0 RC1. How is it possible to get confused with that? openoffice beta is everywhere said as "openoffice 2" and I was reading openoffice 2 "for" RC1
not very important.
however SUSE Linux 10.0 is gone to box manager a week ago or so, so it will not be any novell OOo2RC1 for 10.0.
Don't bet on it. Under pub/projects/OpenOffice.org you can find updates for 9.3 right now. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the release candidates and the eventual final version will appear there for 10.0 as well
There is still nothing beyond 1.99.3-0.1, even those 2.0 has been released today, by OpenOffice.org. I thought SUSE had promised to provide updates to OO, as they became available.
* James Knott
I thought SUSE had promised to provide updates to OO, as they became available.
comment was probably two weeks on OpenSUSE list. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:55:01PM -0400, James Knott took 33 lines to write: [snip]
There is still nothing beyond 1.99.3-0.1, even those 2.0 has been released today, by OpenOffice.org.
I thought SUSE had promised to provide updates to OO, as they became available.
For heaven's sake, be patient. It was only just released today. You don't suppose it might take longer than twenty minutes to spin a 2.0 RPM? Kurt -- "A power so great, it can only be used for Good or Evil!" -- Firesign Theatre, "The Giant Rat of Summatra"
Kurt Wall wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:55:01PM -0400, James Knott took 33 lines to write:
[snip]
There is still nothing beyond 1.99.3-0.1, even those 2.0 has been released today, by OpenOffice.org.
I thought SUSE had promised to provide updates to OO, as they became available.
For heaven's sake, be patient. It was only just released today. You don't suppose it might take longer than twenty minutes to spin a 2.0 RPM?
Well, it's been at least 10 hours now, since it was released. ;-)
ftp.hosteurope.de/mirror/ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/OpenOffice.org/9.3-i386/1.9.129-0.1/ Francesco
James Knott wrote:
Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where?
tnx jk
Open Office 2 pre has been available from SUSE since 9.3.The latest
Francesco Teodori wrote: they now is build 1.9.125.1.2. It is available via online update. It's listed as 1.9.****. Rich
C.Richard Matson wrote:
Francesco Teodori wrote:
ftp.hosteurope.de/mirror/ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/OpenOffice.org/9.3-i386/1.9.129-0.1/
Francesco
James Knott wrote:
Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where?
tnx jk
Open Office 2 pre has been available from SUSE since 9.3.The latest they now is build 1.9.125.1.2. It is available via online update. It's listed as 1.9.****. Rich
I'm looking for RC1, not pre 2.
C.Richard Matson wrote:
Francesco Teodori wrote:
ftp.hosteurope.de/mirror/ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/OpenOffice.org/9.3-i386/1.9.129-0.1/
Francesco
James Knott wrote:
Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where?
tnx jk
Open Office 2 pre has been available from SUSE since 9.3.The latest they now is build 1.9.125.1.2. It is available via online update. It's listed as 1.9.****. Rich
I'm looking for for v2.0 RC1, not v1.9.x.
James Knott wrote:
Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where?
tnx jk
as long as I remember, open office is standard in RC1 JDD -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr
jdd sur free wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where?
tnx jk
as long as I remember, open office is standard in RC1
Well, I got it by letting the 9.3 Pro automatic update do its thing. Susewatcher just downloaded it and set it up for me, without hassle of any kind. I haven't yet gone to 10.0. John Perry
John Perry wrote:
jdd sur free wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where?
tnx jk
as long as I remember, open office is standard in RC1
Well, I got it by letting the 9.3 Pro automatic update do its thing. Susewatcher just downloaded it and set it up for me, without hassle of any kind. I haven't yet gone to 10.0.
You were able to get v2.0 RC1? How'd you manage that? I've been checking with Online Update and haven't yet seen any mention of it.
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment... I sat through so much anti-proprietary rhetorical bullshit at Summit last summer in NOLA and the mear simple fact that we don't have transparent o/s distro portability for applications just really annoyed me. So, next time you hear some linux zealot get up and bitch about how M$, IBM, etc., are proprietary (and they ARE), remind yourself that linux is also VERY PROPRIETARY. On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, James Knott wrote:
John Perry wrote:
jdd sur free wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Now that OpenOffice 2.0 RC1 is available, does anyone know if a SuSE version is available yet? And if so, where?
tnx jk
as long as I remember, open office is standard in RC1
Well, I got it by letting the 9.3 Pro automatic update do its thing. Susewatcher just downloaded it and set it up for me, without hassle of any kind. I haven't yet gone to 10.0.
You were able to get v2.0 RC1? How'd you manage that? I've been checking with Online Update and haven't yet seen any mention of it.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Don wrote:
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment...
Environment's the key word, there...
I sat through so much anti-proprietary rhetorical bullshit at Summit last summer in NOLA and the mear simple fact that we don't have transparent o/s distro portability for applications just really annoyed me.
If you'd really paid attention, you wouldn't be making such an ass of yourself now...
So, next time you hear some linux zealot get up and bitch about how M$, IBM, etc., are proprietary (and they ARE), remind yourself that linux is also VERY PROPRIETARY.
I, you, or anyone else can simply download almost any linux package, install it ourselves, maybe do some minor tweaking (or maybe not), and go. The "proprietary environment" means that we can let the distro do it for us, because it always knows where everything goes, and doesn't have to worry about file locations and versions -- unless, of course, we've installed something on our own without respecting the distro's environment. Even that's becoming less of an issue, since many linux distributions conform to the Linux Standards Base. Isn't SUSE one of those? I've downloaded several RPM's that were not SUSE labeled, and had no problem installing and running them -- usually without needing any tweaking. I wish more packages and distributions would label themselves prominently as LSB compliant. jp
Don wrote:
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment...
While SuSe has a modified version of OO, there's no technical reason that the version from OpenOffice.org won't run. Also, most Linux distros are moving to LSB, so that all the relevant files etc., will be in the same place.
James Knott wrote:
Don wrote:
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment...
While SuSe has a modified version of OO, there's no technical reason that the version from OpenOffice.org won't run. Also, most Linux distros are moving to LSB, so that all the relevant files etc., will be in the same place.
Sorry, what is "LSB" please?? -- Tony Alfrey tonyalfrey@earthlink.net "I'd Rather Be Sailing"
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
I had to work it out, too. http://www.linuxbase.org/ Maccy
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 15:54 +0100, Maccy wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
I had to work it out, too.
Doesn't that standardization open up some security issues in the event a script kiddy finds a way into a particular distro. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
On 10/02/2005 10:10 PM, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 15:54 +0100, Maccy wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
I had to work it out, too.
Doesn't that standardization open up some security issues in the event a script kiddy finds a way into a particular distro.
There is only a fine difference between this: "<install script kiddy crap> <LSB standard pathname>" and this: "for a in <list of distro-dependent pathnames>; do test -d $a && <install script kiddy crap> $a; done" Personally, the standard pathname approach is greatly preferable, as it would save us from having to address the issues of confusion that otherwise are certain to arise (as this thread has already shown, eg. with the browser plugin location thing).
On Monday 03 October 2005 05:10, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 15:54 +0100, Maccy wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
I had to work it out, too.
Doesn't that standardization open up some security issues in the event a script kiddy finds a way into a particular distro.
You can't make Linux, or any OS, secure by scattering faulty and vulnerable programmes around the directory structure in an effort to confuse crackers - "If this is Yellow Dog, it must be /sbin" isn't going to save any of us. The vulnerabilities have to be fixed, and the system assembled in such a way that one small crack doesn't easily become a gaping hole. All that avoiding standard locations does is make it a pain to work on an unfamiliar distro. Best Fergus
-- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _
| | | | [__ | | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
-- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB UK Tel: 0161 834 7961 Fax: 0161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk
Tony Alfrey wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Don wrote:
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment...
While SuSe has a modified version of OO, there's no technical reason that the version from OpenOffice.org won't run. Also, most Linux distros are moving to LSB, so that all the relevant files etc., will be in the same place.
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ It's a standard method for building Linux systems, so that apps etc., don't need to be written in different verions, for different distros.
James Knott wrote:
Tony Alfrey wrote: <snip>
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ
It's a standard method for building Linux systems, so that apps etc., don't need to be written in different verions, for different distros.
Thanks all. -- Tony Alfrey tonyalfrey@earthlink.net "I'd Rather Be Sailing"
well, they may be moving that way, but it's not only not there yet, I don't see where there's any competitive advantage to being a distro if everyone's selling the same thing(which won't ever happen) and vendors I don't think can be badgered enough to write to ONLY the LSB. On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, James Knott wrote:
Tony Alfrey wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Don wrote:
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment...
While SuSe has a modified version of OO, there's no technical reason that the version from OpenOffice.org won't run. Also, most Linux distros are moving to LSB, so that all the relevant files etc., will be in the same place.
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ
It's a standard method for building Linux systems, so that apps etc., don't need to be written in different verions, for different distros.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Don wrote:
well, they may be moving that way, but it's not only not there yet, I don't see where there's any competitive advantage to being a distro if everyone's selling the same thing(which won't ever happen) and vendors I don't think can be badgered enough to write to ONLY the LSB.
It doesn't have to be the same thing, even when following LSB. There's still plenty of room for innovation.
On Friday 30 September 2005 07:16 pm, Don wrote:
well, they may be moving that way, but it's not only not there yet, I don't see where there's any competitive advantage to being a distro if everyone's selling the same thing(which won't ever happen) and vendors I don't think can be badgered enough to write to ONLY the LSB. =========
Well Don, seems that nothing is going your way today! You just seem to be having an overall crappy day and decided to take it out on Linux, SuSE, the email list? Some days you're the dog and some you're the hydrant and I guess this was your day to be the hydrant. :o) Maybe the world and Linux will look better tomorrow. Best to keep your fingers off the keyboard today though. end of line Lee
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 09:17 -0700, Tony Alfrey wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Don wrote:
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment...
While SuSe has a modified version of OO, there's no technical reason that the version from OpenOffice.org won't run. Also, most Linux distros are moving to LSB, so that all the relevant files etc., will be in the same place.
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
Linux Standard Base. It's a specification intended to keep Linux from going the way of Unix. http://www.linuxbase.org/
On Friday, September 30, 2005 @ 8:18 AM, Tony Alfrey wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Don wrote:
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment...
While SuSe has a modified version of OO, there's no technical reason that the version from OpenOffice.org won't run. Also, most Linux distros are moving to LSB, so that all the relevant files etc., will be in the same place.
Sorry, what is "LSB" please??
-- Tony Alfrey tonyalfrey@earthlink.net "I'd Rather Be Sailing"
James Knott wrote:
Don wrote:
Ya know, this just drives home the fact of how each and every distro of linux is it's own PROPRIETARY environment...
While SuSe has a modified version of OO, there's no technical reason that the version from OpenOffice.org won't run. Also, most Linux distros are moving to LSB, so that all the relevant files etc., will be in the same place.
Here's hoping. It's been a long time since you could download and install a rpm or deb and have it run on any distro, it shouldn't be as it is now .... today on linuxtoday.com " Distributions Are Too "Alienated," Says Dell CEO" and he is not wrong. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
Sid Boyce wrote:
Here's hoping. It's been a long time since you could download and install a rpm or deb and have it run on any distro, it shouldn't be as it is now ....
depends... most big apps like Openoffice are nearly static compiled (all the relevant libraries are included), so they can run from anywhere. many rpm (I don't know for deb) are also. time ago, the computer power was small (486 time) and dynamic apps could save many memory and processor cycles. now most power is unused on modern computers, memory is enormous (I remember programms for 50 "bytes" (Ti calculator) and saving power is not mandatory, at least in the beginning, when one try an app to see if it fits. I look with interest to "klick" apps (klick and run package) the main problem with LSB and optimized application is that they are spread in all the parts of the disk. Do you know in how many place you can find Yast component (try updatedb &, then locate YaST) for example, I got flash player for mozilla. I could copy it to /opt/semonkey and /opt/Firefox, but still don't know where to copy it for Konqueror... jdd -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr
Sid Boyce wrote:
Here's hoping. It's been a long time since you could download and install a rpm or deb and have it run on any distro, it shouldn't be as it is now ....
depends...
most big apps like Openoffice are nearly static compiled (all the relevant libraries are included), so they can run from anywhere.
many rpm (I don't know for deb) are also.
time ago, the computer power was small (486 time) and dynamic apps could save many memory and processor cycles.
now most power is unused on modern computers, memory is enormous (I remember programms for 50 "bytes" (Ti calculator) and saving power is not mandatory, at least in the beginning, when one try an app to see if it fits.
I look with interest to "klick" apps (klick and run package)
the main problem with LSB and optimized application is that they are spread in all the parts of the disk. Do you know in how many place you can find Yast component (try updatedb &, then locate YaST)
for example, I got flash player for mozilla. I could copy it to /opt/semonkey and /opt/Firefox, but still don't know where to copy it for Konqueror...
jdd I know there are isolated instances, but for many, they need libraries
jdd sur free wrote: that may not be present at the required level on your distro, sometimes the libraries are the same level but compiled without the options needed by the foreign program. That's the reason OOo has some distro-specific parts. Download some utilities and you are scuppered using them because the scripts are in different places than for your distro. I can see exactly what the Dell CEO is saying and if the people putting the various distros together insist on doing their own crazy stuff, they'll find it harder to do business. If anyone believes the Linux distros have learned any lessons from Unix fragmentation, they lie to themselves. The Unix crazies have sons, daughters and grandchildren firmly entrenched in the Linux camp, hands ready on the self-destruct button. They may pay lip service to the LSB specifications, but they don't type with their lips. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
<snip>
the main problem with LSB and optimized application is that they are spread in all the parts of the disk. Do you know in how many place you can find Yast component (try updatedb &, then locate YaST)
for example, I got flash player for mozilla. I could copy it to /opt/semonkey and /opt/Firefox, but still don't know where to copy it for Konqueror... Why do you need --or want-- to copy anything anywhere? That is why the gods invented soft links. Besides, most packages you install know enough to test for all these directories, and make a link in all the plugin
On 09/30/2005 11:01 AM, jdd sur free wrote: directories you might have. You should not have to link anything anywhere, and if you do, complain to the people who built the package, not the people who built your distribution. As for Konqueror, Settings/Configure Konqueror --> Plugins. Which directory did you want it to look in?
John Perry wrote:
Well, I got it by letting the 9.3 Pro automatic update do its thing. Susewatcher just downloaded it and set it up for me, without hassle of any kind. I haven't yet gone to 10.0.
Sorry, I was confused by the opening screen, which does say 2.0. However, when I opened Writer and looked at "about OpenOffice", _that_ says "2.0-pre", then in fine print underneath "Build 1.9.125.1.2". jp
John Perry wrote:
John Perry wrote:
Well, I got it by letting the 9.3 Pro automatic update do its thing. Susewatcher just downloaded it and set it up for me, without hassle of any kind. I haven't yet gone to 10.0.
Sorry, I was confused by the opening screen, which does say 2.0. However, when I opened Writer and looked at "about OpenOffice", _that_ says "2.0-pre", then in fine print underneath "Build 1.9.125.1.2".
jp
I ran YOU yesterday on my Suse 9.3 server and it also got the OOo 1.9.125. It is much faster opening now, about 5 seconds on Semperon 3200 running via FreeNX. (It boots up in run level 3) Just updated my WinXP laptop to the RC1. It is also faster than the previous 1.9.125 that I had, about 4 sec on Pentium 4, 2 GHz without quickstarter. With quikstarter running, it is less than 1 sec. Art
How does one start quickstarter? I don't normally use things like that, but am dealing with using OOo lots and lots these days.... B-) On Friday 30 September 2005 11:26 am, Art Fore wrote:
John Perry wrote:
John Perry wrote:
Well, I got it by letting the 9.3 Pro automatic update do its thing. Susewatcher just downloaded it and set it up for me, without hassle of any kind. I haven't yet gone to 10.0.
Sorry, I was confused by the opening screen, which does say 2.0. However, when I opened Writer and looked at "about OpenOffice", _that_ says "2.0-pre", then in fine print underneath "Build 1.9.125.1.2".
jp
I ran YOU yesterday on my Suse 9.3 server and it also got the OOo 1.9.125. It is much faster opening now, about 5 seconds on Semperon 3200 running via FreeNX. (It boots up in run level 3)
Just updated my WinXP laptop to the RC1. It is also faster than the previous 1.9.125 that I had, about 4 sec on Pentium 4, 2 GHz without quickstarter. With quikstarter running, it is less than 1 sec.
Art
On Friday 30 September 2005 12:57, Brad Bourn wrote:
How does one start quickstarter?
I don't normally use things like that, but am dealing with using OOo lots and lots these days....
Go to K menu->System->Desktop Applet->OpenOffice.Org Quickstarter. -- JAY VOLLMER JVOLLMER@VISI.COM WHAT WE GOT HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!
In the WinXP version, it is automatic, or seems to be. In Suse 9.3, it is under System, Desktop Applet, OpenOffice Quickstarter. In both cases you have the option of having it load on boot or login or not. Art Brad Bourn wrote:
How does one start quickstarter?
I don't normally use things like that, but am dealing with using OOo lots and lots these days....
B-)
On Friday 30 September 2005 11:26 am, Art Fore wrote:
John Perry wrote:
John Perry wrote:
Well, I got it by letting the 9.3 Pro automatic update do its thing. Susewatcher just downloaded it and set it up for me, without hassle of any kind. I haven't yet gone to 10.0.
Sorry, I was confused by the opening screen, which does say 2.0. However, when I opened Writer and looked at "about OpenOffice", _that_ says "2.0-pre", then in fine print underneath "Build 1.9.125.1.2".
jp
I ran YOU yesterday on my Suse 9.3 server and it also got the OOo 1.9.125. It is much faster opening now, about 5 seconds on Semperon 3200 running via FreeNX. (It boots up in run level 3)
Just updated my WinXP laptop to the RC1. It is also faster than the previous 1.9.125 that I had, about 4 sec on Pentium 4, 2 GHz without quickstarter. With quikstarter running, it is less than 1 sec.
Art
On Friday 30 September 2005 12:03 pm, Art Fore wrote:
In the WinXP version, it is automatic, or seems to be. In Suse 9.3, it is under System, Desktop Applet, OpenOffice Quickstarter. In both cases you have the option of having it load on boot or login or not.
I don't have the distro install of OOo. I have the 2.0RC1 installed with the suse-desktop integration. I don't see an OpenOffice reference under System->Desktop Applet->.... any ideas? B-)
Brad Bourn wrote:
On Friday 30 September 2005 12:03 pm, Art Fore wrote:
In the WinXP version, it is automatic, or seems to be. In Suse 9.3, it is under System, Desktop Applet, OpenOffice Quickstarter. In both cases you have the option of having it load on boot or login or not.
I don't have the distro install of OOo. I have the 2.0RC1 installed with the suse-desktop integration. I don't see an OpenOffice reference under System->Desktop Applet->....
Open up a terminal and enter "oooqs".
On Friday 30 September 2005 2:17 pm, James Knott wrote:
Open up a terminal and enter "oooqs".
I searched for oooqs and it isn't listed anywhere on the drive..... I assume that is 3 o's followed by a Q and then s. I have installed the 2.0RC1. thanks for the help B=)
Brad Bourn wrote:
On Friday 30 September 2005 2:17 pm, James Knott wrote:
Open up a terminal and enter "oooqs".
I searched for oooqs and it isn't listed anywhere on the drive.....
I assume that is 3 o's followed by a Q and then s.
I have installed the 2.0RC1.
I'm running the version that came with SuSE 9.3. It has /opt/kde3/bin/oooqs.
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 09:58 -0600, Brad Bourn wrote:
On Monday 03 October 2005 9:37 am, James Knott wrote:
I'm running the version that came with SuSE 9.3. It has /opt/kde3/bin/oooqs.
hmmm wonder what they did with it?
or if it is still needed. RC1 does seem faster for sure.
B-)
I don't use the SuSE-supplied version. I just go with the one from OO.org's site. It's built to blend in with SuSE just fine.
On Monday 03 October 2005 11:57 am, Jack Brooks wrote:
I don't use the SuSE-supplied version. I just go with the one from OO.org's site. It's built to blend in with SuSE just fine.
I'm using 2.0rc1 also and it runs quite well. A bit off topic but wonder if you could do me a favor and try to create a graph with it. For instance, make two columns with data: 11/03/2003 149232 11/04/2003 152469 11/06/2003 153130 11/06/2003 152054 11/07/2003 152865 11/12/2003 159840 11/13/2003 161122 11/13/2003 160738 11/14/2003 160257 11/18/2003 158322 I was able to build a chart last April with the above just fine with whatever version was recent back then.... but can no longer do so with any of the more recent versions. I've been trying to convince the OO people that there is a problem. They seem unconvinced. I'd just like a little verification. All I can get out of OO now is that it charts both of the columns on the graph and uses row1, row2, row3 for the X values. I've found no way to tell it to treat col1 as the X value and col2 as the Y value. Thanks.
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 12:24 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 03 October 2005 11:57 am, Jack Brooks wrote:
I don't use the SuSE-supplied version. I just go with the one from OO.org's site. It's built to blend in with SuSE just fine.
I'm using 2.0rc1 also and it runs quite well.
A bit off topic but wonder if you could do me a favor and try to create a graph with it. For instance, make two columns with data:
11/03/2003 149232 11/04/2003 152469 11/06/2003 153130 11/06/2003 152054 11/07/2003 152865 11/12/2003 159840 11/13/2003 161122 11/13/2003 160738 11/14/2003 160257 11/18/2003 158322
Could the problem be in duplicate dates with different data?
On Monday 03 October 2005 12:30 pm, Jack Brooks wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 12:24 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 03 October 2005 11:57 am, Jack Brooks wrote:
I don't use the SuSE-supplied version. I just go with the one from OO.org's site. It's built to blend in with SuSE just fine.
I'm using 2.0rc1 also and it runs quite well.
A bit off topic but wonder if you could do me a favor and try to create a graph with it. For instance, make two columns with data:
11/03/2003 149232 11/04/2003 152469 11/06/2003 153130 11/06/2003 152054 11/07/2003 152865 11/12/2003 159840 11/13/2003 161122 11/13/2003 160738 11/14/2003 160257 11/18/2003 158322
Could the problem be in duplicate dates with different data?
Good catch but changing the value didn't change the way the chart was made up.
On Monday 03 October 2005 18:24, Bruce Marshall wrote:
I'd just like a little verification. All I can get out of OO now is that it charts both of the columns on the graph and uses row1, row2, row3 for the X values. I've found no way to tell it to treat col1 as the X value and col2 as the Y value.
If I select "First column as label" and leave the rest at defaults, I get a chart with the column B values on the Y axis and each column has the date from column A as label
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 18:43 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
If I select "First column as label" and leave the rest at defaults, I get a chart with the column B values on the Y axis and each column has the date from column A as label.
Bingo! That worked for me as well. I have to apologize for my earlier response. I usually use OOWriter and not Calc. Jack
On Monday 03 October 2005 12:43 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
I'd just like a little verification. All I can get out of OO now is that it charts both of the columns on the graph and uses row1, row2, row3 for the X values. I've found no way to tell it to treat col1 as the X value and col2 as the Y value.
If I select "First column as label" and leave the rest at defaults, I get a chart with the column B values on the Y axis and each column has the date from column A as label
You may be on to something.... At least it got rid of the row1, row2 on the x-axis but I haven't been able to tell what I really have yet.... Getting (for 450 data pairs) a lot of unintelligible numbers on the x axis.
On Monday 03 October 2005 12:43 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
If I select "First column as label" and leave the rest at defaults, I get a chart with the column B values on the Y axis and each column has the date from column A as label
Does doing this make sense to you?? It doesn't to me. I tried at one point to put labels in the first row as a pair (x and y) but it didn't change anything.
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 03 October 2005 11:57 am, Jack Brooks wrote:
I don't use the SuSE-supplied version. I just go with the one from OO.org's site. It's built to blend in with SuSE just fine.
I'm using 2.0rc1 also and it runs quite well.
A bit off topic but wonder if you could do me a favor and try to create a graph with it. For instance, make two columns with data:
11/03/2003 149232 11/04/2003 152469 11/06/2003 153130 11/06/2003 152054 11/07/2003 152865 11/12/2003 159840 11/13/2003 161122 11/13/2003 160738 11/14/2003 160257 11/18/2003 158322
I was able to build a chart last April with the above just fine with whatever version was recent back then.... but can no longer do so with any of the more recent versions. I've been trying to convince the OO people that there is a problem. They seem unconvinced.
I'd just like a little verification. All I can get out of OO now is that it charts both of the columns on the graph and uses row1, row2, row3 for the X values. I've found no way to tell it to treat col1 as the X value and col2 as the Y value.
If I understand what you're tring to do, you want to tell OO that you're creating a XY chart. On the second screen during the "AutoFormat Chart" dialog select the "XY Chart" option.
On Monday 03 October 2005 03:00 pm, Mark wrote:
I'd just like a little verification. All I can get out of OO now is that it charts both of the columns on the graph and uses row1, row2, row3 for the X values. I've found no way to tell it to treat col1 as the X value and col2 as the Y value.
If I understand what you're tring to do, you want to tell OO that you're creating a XY chart. On the second screen during the "AutoFormat Chart" dialog select the "XY Chart" option.
In all of my attempts, that didn't change a thing. Only selecting the 'First column has labels' did anything and there are still problems with charting. 1) Given many, many data points (as in more than 100 say), you're not going to be able to read the values on the X axis... They all run together. In the April chart that I did, the chart used only 1 out of about 32 data points on the X axis which rendered the dates as very readable and they were all horizontal, not this vertical stuff. I had 334 data pairs. 2) The chart starts at 0 and doesn't do a nice 'fit' on the Y axis. The april chart does that and renders a really nice graph of the values.
participants (26)
-
Anders Johansson -
Art Fore -
BandiPat -
Brad Bourn -
Bruce Marshall -
C.Richard Matson -
Carl William Spitzer IV -
Darryl Gregorash -
Don -
Fergus Wilde -
Francesco Teodori -
Greg Wallace -
Jack Brooks -
James Knott -
Jay Vollmer -
JB -
jdd sur free -
John Perry -
Kurt Wall -
Maccy -
Mark -
Mike McMullin -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Qvindesland -
Sid Boyce -
Tony Alfrey