Issue 45709 - Minimize the Java (JRE) needs
Summary: Minimize the Java (JRE) needs
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.0 Beta
Hardware: All All
: P4 Trivial with 2 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
: 74925 (view as issue list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2005-03-22 05:40 UTC by utomo99
Modified: 2013-02-07 22:38 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

screenshot of JRE needed (52.92 KB, image/png)
2005-03-22 05:45 UTC, utomo99
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description utomo99 2005-03-22 05:40:07 UTC
as review
too many things need JRE on manipulating image.
we need also to reduce it as in previous version or even less.  

and The JRE missing window opens 7 times and you have to click ok each time.
It is really anonying user. why not enough only 1 time ?
Comment 1 utomo99 2005-03-22 05:45:23 UTC
Created attachment 24130 [details]
screenshot of JRE needed
Comment 2 utomo99 2005-03-22 05:46:38 UTC
Comment 3 Olaf Felka 2005-03-22 08:33:09 UTC
Comment 4 utomo99 2005-03-29 10:43:13 UTC

What are the objections to using Java?

Some might argue against Schönheit's characterization of C++ as complex or 
Java as being not slow. However, technical arguments are in many ways beside 
the point. Objections to Java tend to be based less on technical merits than 
on FOSS philosophy on the one hand and the possible consequences for the 
future of on the other.

One of the few technical arguments against's use of Java is 
that it undermines the project's goal to be a cross-platform office suite. 
Many operating systems currently supported, including FreeBSD and GNU/Linux 
for the PowerPC, have no official version of Java. Those who wish to use OOo 
2.0 on such platforms must use GNU/Linux emulation or work with an often 
incomplete free Java implementation. Either way, the new requirement places 
new pressures on the already overworked teams of volunteers 
working on these ports.

Other arguments against using Java focus on the possible consequences for itself. Marco Fioretti, journalist and 
volunteer, worries that the increased dependency on Java may destroy the 
project's credibility, thereby slowing its adaptation. When asked to explain 
misgivings hinted at on the OOo Discuss list, Fioretti says the abrupt move 
toward Java undermines claims that is a mature platform. 
Fioretti also points out that, in jurisdictions where requirements for 
government use require openness, may no longer qualify. 
Corporate managers or lawmakers, Fioretti worries, may conclude that project 
members "are incompetents who produced by pure accident" and 
wonder, "Can I trust them?"

Just as importantly, the dependence on Java threatens's 
credibility with the rest of the FOSS community. Several anonymous 
commentators on NewsForge's recent review of the version 2.0 expressed doubts 
about continuing to use "Maybe I should stop promoting it," 
one anonymous poster wrote. Several others wished that alternatives such as 
KOffice, AbiWord, and Gnumeric would develop faster so that they could become 
full replacements for

Among FOSS contributors, the reaction was much the same. The responses on the, the mailing list for those involved with integrating into the Debian distribution, are typical of ones in other 
pockets of the community. Anders Breindahl, for example, writes, "I find it 
increasingly worrying that Sun to some extent considers Java to be okay for a 
free office suite.... I think this makes less optimal for the 
Free Software community." Similarly, in the same discussion, Sam Hiser, the 
former marketing lead for, characterized the change as 
a "challenge" that the FOSS community must answer with other software that's 
more compatible with its philosophy.

Such comments suggest that little if any dialog is ocurring between those who 
decided to use Java and those who object to the decision. Each camp has a 
focus that is different from the other's. To date, neither seems to have 
responded to the other side's concerns.

Comment 5 ace_dent 2008-05-16 00:54:23 UTC Issue Tracker - Feedback Request.

The Issue you raised is currently assigned to 'Requirements' pending review, but
has not been updated within the last 3 years. Please consider re-testing with
one of the latest versions of OOo, as the problem(s) may have already been
addressed. Either use the recent stable version:
or consider trying the new OOo 3 BETA (still in testing):
Please report back the outcome so this Issue may be Closed or Progressed as
necessary - otherwise it may be Resolved as Invalid in the future. You may also
wish to search for (and note) any duplicates of this Issue that may have
advanced further by checking the Issue Tracker:
Many thanks,
Cleaning-up and Closing old Issues as part of:
~ The Grand Bug Squash, pre v3 ~
Comment 6 milek_pl 2008-07-16 21:42:20 UTC
*** Issue 74925 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***