Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3397 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] OpenOffice 2.0 (was FireFox broken, is SuSE Pro becoming a test bed like Fedora?)
  • From: Preston Crawford <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
  • Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504271613230.9817@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

> Jack Brooks wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 12:10 -0700, Preston Crawford wrote:
> >
> > > Especially with regards to problems with OpenOffice 2.0 (which last I
> > > heard is still beta). Putting major versions of software like this
> > > into the distro when their beta seems like a bad idea. And people are
> > > having problems with it.
> > >
> >
> > I wanted to point out that, while OOo 2.0 is beta, you can easily
> > download the latest batch of rpms
> i.e. development versions
> > from the website and install with your
> > tool of choice. They even have specific rpms for suse, redhat,
> > mandrake, and freedesktop menus (although you do have to delete the
> > redhat and mandrake rpms in order to install). The latest release,
> > build .95 is really pretty solid for all the basic functions in writer.
> > I use it for school constantly.
> I would concur, using 1.9.95 here in 9.2 presently, and it is working pretty
> good for my purposes.

This misses the point. It may work, but that isn't the SuSE way of doing
things. So back to my original point. If SuSE is going to begin releasing
software that's unstable, doesn't work, hasn't been tested or is in beta,
what am I paying for exactly? I could just as easily get FreeBSD or Fedora
for free and spend my $80 every 6 months (because I *usually* get every
upgrade) on contributing to the free software project of my choice
directly, instead of paying for software that is every bit as unstable as
other free distributions.


< Previous Next >
Follow Ups