|
Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing |
| Summary: | Add installation option to choose market-dominant default file format for platform | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Installation | Reporter: | oharboe <oyvind.harboe> |
| Component: | ui | Assignee: | requirements <requirements> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | issues@installation <issues> |
| Severity: | Trivial | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | issues |
| Version: | OOo 2.0 Beta | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Issue Type: | ENHANCEMENT | Latest Confirmation in: | --- |
| Developer Difficulty: | --- | ||
|
Description
oharboe
2005-03-03 11:18:22 UTC
I don't see this as a usefull feature: Our open document format provides more features then the closed source format. I see this as a document-feature regression. A I don't think that we want to be a clone product. >I don't see this as a usefull feature: Our open document format provides more >features then the closed source format. I believe this is 100% true. >I see this as a document-feature regression. Agreed. However, both these formats(OpenOffice/MS Office) are much, much more powerful than what the most users will ever need. Also, it is only the OpenOffice code that can tell that the MS formats are horrible and feeble. Normally the user has no idea about the pain & suffering that the OpenOffice team went through. It just works. >A I don't think that we want to be a clone product. OpenOffice can do something that Microsoft can never do: create a stable product that caters for common uses without introducing new formats unless there is a genunine need for a new format based upon users requirements. This is in the users interest, but would be financial suicide for Microsoft. please don't add any configuration to the installation. Installation is for installation not for configuration. There is a different point of control for configuration. >please don't add any configuration to the installation. Installation is for
>installation not for configuration. There is a different point of control for
>configuration.
Agreed.
On the other hand, configuration should be complete when installation is complete.
If the user has to modify options after installations, then strictly speaking
the configuration of these options haven't been moved out of the installation
procedure.
The installation procedure is not a program, it is the steps that the user must
perform to properly prepare the application for use.
This option would naturally go on the same page that sets up file associations
as drop-down requester(use OpenOffice/Microsoft formats).
Øyvind
I dare to disagree: configuration has to start when installation is complete. Configuration has to be user specific (for one user, for a group of users, or for all users) whereas installation has to be user agnostic (always for all users). After installation the product is generically usable and can be configured if desired. Since you must be able to change the configuration at any time, installation is not the right medium for that or you have to implement it twice. >I dare to disagree: configuration has to start when installation is complete.
>Configuration has to be user specific (for one user, for a group of users, or
>for all users) whereas installation has to be user agnostic (always for all
>users). After installation the product is generically usable and can be
>configured if desired. Since you must be able to change the configuration at any
>time, installation is not the right medium for that or you have to implement it
>twice.
So according to your thinking, file associations should not be configured by the
installer program?
What are the objective criterea that places default file format in the options
menu and file associations in the installer?
Øyvind
Closing as dup of http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70753. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 70753 *** and closing. |