Hi - first in a series of minor complaints about the Suse 9.3 install :) I decided to do a clean install instead of upgrading from Suse 9.2 (which was an upgrade from 9.1, and had various slightly broken configs as a result) and now I'm finding several points of pain... First, OpenOffice 2.0 beta has a few real headaches: - Saving as open office 1 means losing your User Defined fields (The ones in the "User Defined" tab of Document Properties). This is not just when loading them into OO version 1 - if I edit and save a .sxw file I lose the user defined fields. A slight problem when my entire office uses these fields for key document info. - Saving as version 1 also seems to break some styles when loaded by another user using OpenOffice 1. They look ok in OO2, but are changed in strange ways in OO1. - There is no jpg filter in the default install! If I try to embed a jpg file into a document I get a warning: "Graphics filter not found". (Update - on checking further, this only seems to work for some images - specifically, our company logo! Some jpgs are fine. bizarre.) This also means previously embedded jpeg files in existing sxw documents show up as errors, it took considerable effort to find the problem was with filters. (If it is) - Numerous regular crashes, especially when editing drawing elements embedded into a Writer document. Sadly, I might have to revert to version 1 in order to actually get my work done. I know that this is a beta, but I had hoped that if Novell/Suse thought that 2.0 was worth installing as the default, it meant that the product was stable enough to use. I'm especially worried by the problems dealing with version 1.0 document formats - if I'm going to use this, I have to be able to keep using the old document format until my whole workplace has migrated, I'd hoped that file system backward compatibility was a primary goal of the new version... Can you run both versions at once? I haven't tried this, but if it works relatively smoothly, I might give it a go - I'd hate to have to completely revert, and lose all the nice new features of the Draw program. - Korny
Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
Can you run both versions at once? I haven't tried this, but if it works relatively smoothly, I might give it a go - I'd hate to have to completely revert, and lose all the nice new features of the Draw program.
Yes, you can run both, provided they're installed into separate directories. Hopefully v2.0 will be ready soon.
On Thursday 05 May 2005 08:48, Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
I know that this is a beta, but I had hoped that if Novell/Suse thought that 2.0 was worth installing as the default, it meant that the product was stable enough to use.
OO.o2 was planned to be final before 9.3 was released. Well, it wasn't ready. So, it's better to install 1.1.x to avoid crashes, until 2.0 is done and available via YOU. Add ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/9.3/ as YaST2 installation source (Change Installation Source).
Hi, On Thu, 5 May 2005 16:34:50 +0300 Silviu Marin-Caea <.> wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 08:48, Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
I know that this is a beta, but I had hoped that if Novell/Suse thought that 2.0 was worth installing as the default, it meant that the product was stable enough to use.
OO.o2 was planned to be final before 9.3 was released. Well, it wasn't ready. So, it's better to install 1.1.x to avoid crashes, until 2.0 is done and available via YOU.
Add ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/9.3/ as YaST2 installation source (Change Installation Source).
... and in this case please don't forget to do youpdate for the newly installed OpenOffice_org1-related stuff. YOU will update its packages to version '1.1.3-4.2'. Best regards, Pelibali
On Thursday 05 May 2005 15:34, Silviu Marin-Caea wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 08:48, Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
I know that this is a beta, but I had hoped that if Novell/Suse thought that 2.0 was worth installing as the default, it meant that the product was stable enough to use.
OO.o2 was planned to be final before 9.3 was released. Well, it wasn't ready. So, it's better to install 1.1.x to avoid crashes, until 2.0 is done and available via YOU.
Add ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/9.3/ as YaST2 installation source (Change Installation Source).
1. Please don't post "SOLUTION"s to other people's posts. It is up to the original poster to decide if it is a solution or not. 2. Please don't use ftp.suse.com as an installation source. Use a mirror instead.
Silviu Marin-Caea wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 08:48, Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
I know that this is a beta, but I had hoped that if Novell/Suse thought that 2.0 was worth installing as the default, it meant that the product was stable enough to use.
OO.o2 was planned to be final before 9.3 was released. Well, it wasn't ready. So, it's better to install 1.1.x to avoid crashes, until 2.0 is done and available via YOU.
Add ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/9.3/ as YaST2 installation source (Change Installation Source).
What I'm trying to work out is whether this will seamlessly install OO1 alongside OO2 or whether it will overwrite OO2 or break my menus or something. I've had problems with running multiple versions of a system at the same time (i.e. Java 1.4 and 1.5 - though this seems to be fixed now) so I'm always keen to find out what pain others have had before I go screw up my installation :) It's the one problem with the RPM system. SuSE has the "update-alternates" package now, but only for Java programs... So, has anyone else done this? - Korny
Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
What I'm trying to work out is whether this will seamlessly install OO1 alongside OO2 or whether it will overwrite OO2 or break my menus or something.
There are some compatibility settings in the options for OO1 compatibility (at least in the ones from OO), that might fix the incompatibilities. I have been running the 1.9.xx builds (i.e. 79, 84, 91, 95, now 100) in 9.2 and though I have seen some bugs, if the 100 build with compatibility settings set for your needs works for you in 9.3, I would probably go that route instead of the older 2 beta and 1.3 or 1.4. YMMV. -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Registered Linux user 231871
Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
Silviu Marin-Caea wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 08:48, Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
I know that this is a beta, but I had hoped that if Novell/Suse thought that 2.0 was worth installing as the default, it meant that the product was stable enough to use.
OO.o2 was planned to be final before 9.3 was released. Well, it wasn't ready. So, it's better to install 1.1.x to avoid crashes, until 2.0 is done and available via YOU.
Add ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/9.3/ as YaST2 installation source (Change Installation Source).
What I'm trying to work out is whether this will seamlessly install OO1 alongside OO2 or whether it will overwrite OO2 or break my menus or something.
I've had problems with running multiple versions of a system at the same time (i.e. Java 1.4 and 1.5 - though this seems to be fixed now) so I'm always keen to find out what pain others have had before I go screw up my installation :) It's the one problem with the RPM system. SuSE has the "update-alternates" package now, but only for Java programs...
So, has anyone else done this?
I have had multiple copies of OpenOffice or StarOffice. No problem.
hi, --- James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
So, has anyone else done this?
I have had multiple copies of OpenOffice or StarOffice. No problem.
I have a copy of the OO beta. I am on SuSE 9.1. I want to have both the old version and the beta running concurrently on my system so that I can fall back on the old one if the new one doesn't work properly. Can someone tell me how to do this? If I do 'rpm -Uvih *rpm' with the beta, I guess I will lose the old version. Right? Regards, Chaitanya. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Chaitanya Krishna A wrote:
hi,
--- James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
So, has anyone else done this?
I have had multiple copies of OpenOffice or StarOffice. No problem.
I have a copy of the OO beta. I am on SuSE 9.1. I want to have both the old version and the beta running concurrently on my system so that I can fall back on the old one if the new one doesn't work properly. Can someone tell me how to do this?
If I do 'rpm -Uvih *rpm' with the beta, I guess I will lose the old version. Right?
I don't recall using RPM to install. I've usually used the tarball, which creates a new directory.
If I do 'rpm -Uvih *rpm' with the beta, I guess I will lose the old version. Right?
No, use -ivh. The rpm will install into a fresh subdirectory. On my machine, it installs in /opt . And each installation forms its own subdir under /opt; thus a new install does not overwrite the old. Best, Pete -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peter N. Spotts | Science Correspondent The Christian Science Monitor One Norway Street, Boston MA 02115 Office: 617-450-2449 | Office in home: 508-520-3139 Email: pspotts@alum.mit.edu | www.csmonitor.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Fri, 6 May 2005 15:12, Chaitanya Krishna A wrote:
hi,
--- James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
So, has anyone else done this?
I have had multiple copies of OpenOffice or StarOffice. No problem.
I have a copy of the OO beta. I am on SuSE 9.1. I want to have both the old version and the beta running concurrently on my system so that I can fall back on the old one if the new one doesn't work properly. Can someone tell me how to do this?
If I do 'rpm -Uvih *rpm' with the beta, I guess I will lose the old version. Right?
All I do after extracting the archives is rpm -Uvh *.rpm, the new beta version will not overwrite the old SuSE OpenOffice 1.3 version. A few things to watch with the new beta is that there is a new sub-directory which has the different distribution specific menu stuff in it. Previously all these files were in the same directory are all the core files, and you had to delete the Redhat and mandrake versions before installing. I find that if you have a earlier version of OOo 2.00 beta installed and you upgrade to a newer version the KDE menu's can get screwed up. -- Regards, Graham Smith
On Thu, 5 May 2005 15:48, Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
First, OpenOffice 2.0 beta has a few real headaches: - Saving as open office 1 means losing your User Defined fields (The ones in the "User Defined" tab of Document Properties). This is not just when loading them into OO version 1 - if I edit and save a .sxw file I lose the user defined fields. A slight problem when my entire office uses these fields for key document info.
I have been using OOo Version 2 beta for a while now without any problems on SuSE 9.2. After I installed SuSE 9.3 I found the version supplied by SuSE 9.3 is very buggy. All my documents were not showing the correct formats, fonts displayed were wrong. I removed the SuSE version of OOo and installed the latest version from OpenOffice.org and I'm back to normal. I suggest that you remove the SuSE version and download the latest OpenOffice 2.0 snapshot from http://download.openoffice.org/680/index.html. Just uncompress the package and remove the Redhat and Mandrake rpms then run rpm -Uvh *.rpm as root to install the package. You may need to reallocate the location of the OOo menus under the correct sections i.e. Writer into the Wordprocessor Menu, Calc into the Spreadsheet menu, etc. I think once you install the latest snapshot you will be presently surprised how good the new version is. -- Regards, Graham Smith
On Thursday 05 May 2005 15:48, Graham Smith wrote:
I think once you install the latest snapshot you will be presently surprised how good the new version is.
I'm not much of an office user, and when I do use it I only use the basic functions, so I can't really comment on overall quality, but I can say this: I just installed milestone 100 from openoffice.org, and it launches on a freshly booted system (so nothing in cache) in THREE (3!) seconds Now that is impressive
On Thursday 05 May 2005 10:25 am, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 15:48, Graham Smith wrote:
I think once you install the latest snapshot you will be presently surprised how good the new version is.
I'm not much of an office user, and when I do use it I only use the basic functions, so I can't really comment on overall quality, but I can say this:
I just installed milestone 100 from openoffice.org, and it launches on a freshly booted system (so nothing in cache) in THREE (3!) seconds
Now that is impressive
Yes, it is! I use OO a LOT and have for some time. I don't see any need for any office to use any office version from MickySoft.......OO IS simply that good! Fred -- The only bug free software from MickySoft is still shrink-wrapped in their warehouse..."
The Thursday 2005-05-05 at 15:48 +1000, Kornelis Sietsma wrote:
First, OpenOffice 2.0 beta has a few real headaches:
- There is no jpg filter in the default install! If I try to embed a jpg file into a document I get a warning: "Graphics filter not found". (Update - on checking further, this only seems to work for some images - specifically, our company logo! Some jpgs are fine. bizarre.)
See if your logo contains exif data - just an idea. You can check with "exif" or "jhead".
This also means previously embedded jpeg files in existing sxw documents show up as errors, it took considerable effort to find the problem was with filters. (If it is)
One feature I would like is to tell OO to limit itself to those features a particular format supports, so that there will be no problems by users of other versions or systems. This is particularly painfull when using complex formating tables or columns.
- Numerous regular crashes, especially when editing drawing elements embedded into a Writer document.
I haven't tried that. What I have noticed is that some users can not use accented wovels (á, é, etc) and some can. In the same machine. Weird.
Sadly, I might have to revert to version 1 in order to actually get my work done. I know that this is a beta, but I had hoped that if Novell/Suse thought that 2.0 was worth installing as the default, it meant that the product was stable enough to use.
Me too. The old version should have been in the DVD, too, so that we could decide what to use.
I'm especially worried by the problems dealing with version 1.0 document formats - if I'm going to use this, I have to be able to keep using the old document format until my whole workplace has migrated, I'd hoped that file system backward compatibility was a primary goal of the new version...
Right. One of the things about open formats and software is that the bussiness owning the program can not suddenly decide that new version will be incompatible to force everybody to buy the new one. Or so I thought. I don't know why OO has got to change file formats - again?
Can you run both versions at once? I haven't tried this, but if it works relatively smoothly, I might give it a go - I'd hate to have to completely revert, and lose all the nice new features of the Draw program.
It's an idea... but the download is huge, over a modem (my case). -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Thursday 05 May 2005 3:24 pm, Carlos E. R. wrote: [snip]
One of the things about open formats and software is that the bussiness owning the program can not suddenly decide that new version will be incompatible to force everybody to buy the new one. Or so I thought. I don't know why OO has got to change file formats - again?
Simple......making the format an open standard for interoperability instead of what MickySoft wants to do. Fred -- The only bug free software from MickySoft is still shrink-wrapped in their warehouse..."
The Thursday 2005-05-05 at 17:35 -0400, Fred A. Miller wrote:
One of the things about open formats and software is that the bussiness owning the program can not suddenly decide that new version will be incompatible to force everybody to buy the new one. Or so I thought. I don't know why OO has got to change file formats - again?
Simple......making the format an open standard for interoperability instead of what MickySoft wants to do.
I don't get it. The format used by OO 1 is open, xml based. The *.sxw is documented. The even older format used by star office was not so "open". Both .sxw an .odt files are said by "file" to be "Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract". Old staroffice files (.sdw) are said to be "Microsoft Office Document". Why the extension change? Both are XML files ziped in a single archive. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Friday 06 May 2005 01:09, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I don't get it. The format used by OO 1 is open, xml based. The *.sxw is documented. The even older format used by star office was not so "open".
Both .sxw an .odt files are said by "file" to be "Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract". Old staroffice files (.sdw) are said to be "Microsoft Office Document".
Why the extension change? Both are XML files ziped in a single archive.
Bexause the new format is the OASIS standard, official, and supported by other office suites already. The older format, while open, was not a standard. The new is.
The Friday 2005-05-06 at 02:47 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
Bexause the new format is the OASIS standard, official, and supported by other office suites already. The older format, while open, was not a standard. The new is.
Ah, that's better. What does "OASIS" mean? Sounds familiar, but I'm sleepy. O:-) Mmm, a bad intentioned question: is it supported by M$? O:-) -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Friday 06 May 2005 02:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Friday 2005-05-06 at 02:47 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
Bexause the new format is the OASIS standard, official, and supported by other office suites already. The older format, while open, was not a standard. The new is.
Ah, that's better. What does "OASIS" mean? Sounds familiar, but I'm sleepy. O:-)
the Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php
Mmm, a bad intentioned question: is it supported by M$? O:-)
Of course not. It's a standard.
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Friday 2005-05-06 at 02:47 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
Bexause the new format is the OASIS standard, official, and supported by other office suites already. The older format, while open, was not a standard. The new is.
Ah, that's better. What does "OASIS" mean? Sounds familiar, but I'm sleepy. O:-)
Mmm, a bad intentioned question: is it supported by M$? O:-)
You might find some info at: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/faq.php
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Thursday 2005-05-05 at 17:35 -0400, Fred A. Miller wrote:
One of the things about open formats and software is that the bussiness owning the program can not suddenly decide that new version will be incompatible to force everybody to buy the new one. Or so I thought. I don't know why OO has got to change file formats - again?
Simple......making the format an open standard for interoperability instead of what MickySoft wants to do.
I don't get it. The format used by OO 1 is open, xml based. The *.sxw is documented. The even older format used by star office was not so "open".
Both .sxw an .odt files are said by "file" to be "Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract". Old staroffice files (.sdw) are said to be "Microsoft Office Document".
Why the extension change? Both are XML files ziped in a single archive.
I believe the changes are to comply with OASIS OpenDoc. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/faq.php
participants (11)
-
Anders Johansson -
Carlos E. R. -
Chaitanya Krishna A -
Fred A. Miller -
Graham Smith -
James Knott -
Joe Morris (NTM) -
Kornelis Sietsma -
pelibali -
Peter N. Spotts -
Silviu Marin-Caea