Look, I'm not trying to knock OpenOffice, but the faq you pointed me to illustrates my point that there is a per-user setup that has to occur.
Perhaps I don't understand what problem you're encountering. As should be clear from the FAQ, installing OO.o for multiple non-admin users is quite simple:
Assuming an Admin ran "setup.exe/net" earlier, as a non-admin user...
Navigate to the install directory (likely Program Files\OpenOffice.org)
Click on soffice.exe
Watch as OO.o runs user-specific installation
Compare to Microsoft Office, as a non-admin user...
Click Start -> Programs and find the Microsoft $APP icons
Click the one you want to launch (ie. Microsoft Word)
Watch as Microsoft Office prompts you to enter your user info/initials/etc.
To clarify a bit more, Microsoft Office has a brief "per-user" setup associated with it, but it uses defaults instead of asking for some paths and whatnot. A simple, easily-visible example is to do a fresh install of Office on a 2000/XP machine, and launch Word/Excel/PP for the first time. You should see a brief "installing" dialog box for a few seconds, followed by the "User Information" dialog mentioned above.
More interestingly, if I do a fresh install of Office on my XP box, and then immediately restart and login as a non-admin user without having run Office as Admin once, I get an annoying "please insert the Microsoft Office 2000 installation CD" message that won't let me pass, despite the fact that the previouss installation had successfully completed.
My original point I was trying to make was that I don't understand why it has to be installed in such a way that there is per user setup in the first place.
I don't have an idea myself, but I suspect it's simply designed that way because not every user will be using OO.o, so why create space-consuming personal files unless they're requested? Granted, it's only around 2MB of files. Just my guess, though.
Users shouldn't be presented with setup or registration requests.
I generally agree, but then, the installer (IIRC) just asks for a personal directory -- which the user *should* be able to choose, IMO, as they're the one who will be using/accessing it -- and user information, much like Word launches the "Please enter your name and initials" dialog on first run.
I'm not criticizing your post at all, but to me the two things seem awfully similar. Hope that helps.
Running OpenOffice on a Windows system with multiple users where said users are not administrators is a problem for me and an impediment to the adoption of OpenOffice for many of my clients. Most Windows software I run needs to be installed only once while administrator and then all other nonpriveleged users can run the software. This doesn't appear to be the case with OO.
In a press conference, RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol identified Samsung's new 500Mhz phone as "equivalent to 10 50MHz phones".
"Clearly, Samsung is aiding pirates by providing them with the tools necessary to violate our copyrights. You might not think that a slow and dodgy cellphone can be used for piracy, but with today's technologies... hey, all it takes is a couple of dedicated hackers to pull this off. And with a 500Mhz processor, well, it's pretty clear that this is an act of war against IP holders everywhere."
For someone like him, is there any benefit to be gained from using Firefox?
Well, IE seems to have some semi-major security issue every few months, whereas Firefox has them once or twice a year. Given that record, it sounds to me like you'd have less upgrade/update issues with the Fox.
While certainly not the optimal solution, have you tried Corel's own WP-to-Word Conversion Utility that used to come with their WP7 disc? I don't remember if it supports batch files, and you'll have to do the "WP-to-Word-to-OO.o" path, but it may help.
Well I don't really consider that to be a multiuser install when each user has to run a setup for it to work.
That's strange, because when I install MS Office 2000 on machines here, each user is greeted with a quick "Please wait for Microsoft Office setup" message upon first open. Granted it's only momentary, but it's there.
The only difference is that with MS, you activate the brief setup by clicking the Word/Excel/PP icon. With OO.o, you have to click soffice.exe.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that taxing CDs "because they might be used for piracy" is rather asinine. Each time I create an OSS disc, for instance, I'm tossing money toward some privately-formed group that claims to represent oppressed artists. Nice.
I think music, along with gasoline shouldn't be taxed. Just like food, they are necesseties.
Gasolline, sure. People have got to get to work, and not everyone is within walking/biking distance. But music as a necessity? Sure, life would be boring without it, but it's hardly essential to live.
I recently told a guy who is responsible for IT at a public school about Firefox. He had not heard of it.
Seems a lot of people who should be in-the-loop never are. My wife is a teacher, and her school board announced that they had acquired licenses for StarOffice and OpenOffice. Great, since we use OO.o at home. Weeks after the announcement, she went and talked to one of the IT guys at her school and his face went completely blank.
Your argument is that we shouldn't port OSS to Windows, because some Windows users, after using it, won't want to use it anymore?
Not even close.
My "argument" was that calling Microsoft with concerns about FOSS, to "drive them bonkers", as was suggested, will only result in Microsoft spreading FUD to the average user who doesn't know better. Does that seem unreasonable to you?
My comment illustrated what I consider a valid problem, and was neither an advocate nor a deterrant to developing FOSS for Windows.
While I try and use as much FOSS as I can, I can see your scenario causing some problems for Joe User.
User: "Hi, umm, Microsoft Support? Yeah, I'm trying to run this program called Gimp, and it seems to keep erroring out because of XYZ." Microsoft: "That's because you're running software that is incompatible with Microsoft Windows. Most so-called 'open-source' software is not fully compatible, and can cause problems." User: "Really?" Microsoft: "Of course. How can they possibly afford error-chrcking, compatibility assurance, and quality development when they're offering the software for free?" User: "Oh, ok. Can you recommend any alternatives then?" Microsoft: "Certainly. You can use..."
I thought that it was normal corporate behaviour to look at their competitors.
Good gods. I'm not picking on you specifically, but since many other have posted the same comment in this thread, it's probably best to reiterate this guy's full quote.
As a policy, I don't run anything that competes with Microsoft... We do, in areas on the client, have an open-source client running--just for competitive analysis.
The box of copy paper sitting next to the printer would be able to hold about 1700 songs.
Clearly this is a threat that the RIAA never considered. The obvious solution is to produce paper with DRM built into it, such that it cannot be photocopied or scanned without first obtaining the appropriate permissions.
Is it pack-rat nature?
on
Digital Packrats
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What a strange and often meaningless article.
60% of Brits keep 1000-2000 music files on their portable electronic devices
Is that really pack-rat nature? Portable music devices are popular because they hold lots of songs, so you don't have to drag around your 500-CD collection. I'd say it's more of a convenience issue than a hoarding issue. A better example of "hoarding" would be those people who download every single NES ROM they find on KaZaA "just to have it". I've talked to regular FPS addicts who have ROMs like "Sesame Street" and "Barbie" burned to their ROM discs for no reason other than to say they have X games.
He worked out that one gigabyte (1,073,741,824 bytes) was the equivalent of a pick-up truck filled with paper.
Does this even make sense to compare music files to a truck full of paper?
tell them to move you to their internal do not call list
Yeah, I've done this quite a few times. I keep one of those lists by the phone that runs you through all of the things to say, regarding call lists, parent-company lists, etc. It's had a bit of an effect, and has reduced the number of calls I get, but I still get too many for my liking. Maybe I've pissed somebody off, and they're signing me up. Who knows?
Also try the CMA do not call list
Well, I moved into the new place in June, and added my new number/address to their "don't mail/fax/call" list, but haven't seen much from that yet. I know it takes a while to kick in, but several months is pretty long. At the last place, it only took about 3 weeks.
Another thing that I get is callers asking for some random name (changes each time), and when I tell them that nobody by that name lives here, they immediately start with the "Well, maybe you'd be interested..." pitch. I don't know if they're doing it as a "we didn't call *you*, but got *you* on the line anyway" type defense.
A third thing I often get is messages left on my machine, offering mortage rates/vacations/etc. if I "call the following number". I don't know if this is related to the autodialers or not. If a machine is detected, leave the message. If a person answers, hang up. Maybe.
I swear, this is my biggest source of ire. At least once a week, I get a call from some autodialer. Even worse, I'd say that 3/4 of the time it fails to connect me to an operator, and just hangs up after 20 seconds.
Nothing like running for the phone, only to get dead air and a "click".
Firstly, Apple does not have a monopoly over all uses of the word "iTunes", if that were true then Microsoft could sue anyone that criticised Windows for trademark infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, this is the exact length of a 30 minute sitcom minus commercials
It appears that the networks have you fooled. The sitcoms themselves are commercials.
Look, I'm not trying to knock OpenOffice, but the faq you pointed me to illustrates my point that there is a per-user setup that has to occur.
Perhaps I don't understand what problem you're encountering. As should be clear from the FAQ, installing OO.o for multiple non-admin users is quite simple:
Assuming an Admin ran "setup.exe /net" earlier, as a non-admin user...
Compare to Microsoft Office, as a non-admin user...
To clarify a bit more, Microsoft Office has a brief "per-user" setup associated with it, but it uses defaults instead of asking for some paths and whatnot. A simple, easily-visible example is to do a fresh install of Office on a 2000/XP machine, and launch Word/Excel/PP for the first time. You should see a brief "installing" dialog box for a few seconds, followed by the "User Information" dialog mentioned above.
More interestingly, if I do a fresh install of Office on my XP box, and then immediately restart and login as a non-admin user without having run Office as Admin once, I get an annoying "please insert the Microsoft Office 2000 installation CD" message that won't let me pass, despite the fact that the previouss installation had successfully completed.
My original point I was trying to make was that I don't understand why it has to be installed in such a way that there is per user setup in the first place.
I don't have an idea myself, but I suspect it's simply designed that way because not every user will be using OO.o, so why create space-consuming personal files unless they're requested? Granted, it's only around 2MB of files. Just my guess, though.
Users shouldn't be presented with setup or registration requests.
I generally agree, but then, the installer (IIRC) just asks for a personal directory -- which the user *should* be able to choose, IMO, as they're the one who will be using/accessing it -- and user information, much like Word launches the "Please enter your name and initials" dialog on first run.
I'm not criticizing your post at all, but to me the two things seem awfully similar. Hope that helps.
Running OpenOffice on a Windows system with multiple users where said users are not administrators is a problem for me and an impediment to the adoption of OpenOffice for many of my clients. Most Windows software I run needs to be installed only once while administrator and then all other nonpriveleged users can run the software. This doesn't appear to be the case with OO.
Installing OO.o for Multiple Users. Worked on every Windows machine I've ever installed OO.o on, without fail.
That's why the OO.o FAQ exists.
Details to follow...
In a press conference, RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol identified Samsung's new 500Mhz phone as "equivalent to 10 50MHz phones".
"Clearly, Samsung is aiding pirates by providing them with the tools necessary to violate our copyrights. You might not think that a slow and dodgy cellphone can be used for piracy, but with today's technologies ... hey, all it takes is a couple of dedicated hackers to pull this off. And with a 500Mhz processor, well, it's pretty clear that this is an act of war against IP holders everywhere."
For someone like him, is there any benefit to be gained from using Firefox?
Well, IE seems to have some semi-major security issue every few months, whereas Firefox has them once or twice a year. Given that record, it sounds to me like you'd have less upgrade/update issues with the Fox.
While certainly not the optimal solution, have you tried Corel's own WP-to-Word Conversion Utility that used to come with their WP7 disc? I don't remember if it supports batch files, and you'll have to do the "WP-to-Word-to-OO.o" path, but it may help.
Well I don't really consider that to be a multiuser install when each user has to run a setup for it to work.
That's strange, because when I install MS Office 2000 on machines here, each user is greeted with a quick "Please wait for Microsoft Office setup" message upon first open. Granted it's only momentary, but it's there.
The only difference is that with MS, you activate the brief setup by clicking the Word/Excel/PP icon. With OO.o, you have to click soffice.exe.
Is this just me?
My bad. Filters mucked up which message to which I was replying.
GASOLINE is a neccessity
Did I not acknowledge that? Check again.
According to your calculation's there should be a job for every square foot of surface area on the planet.
What calculation would that be?
The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455
Dare I ask how that number was dervied? It seems awfully arbitrary, and full of doom-and-gloom.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that taxing CDs "because they might be used for piracy" is rather asinine. Each time I create an OSS disc, for instance, I'm tossing money toward some privately-formed group that claims to represent oppressed artists. Nice.
I think music, along with gasoline shouldn't be taxed. Just like food, they are necesseties.
Gasolline, sure. People have got to get to work, and not everyone is within walking/biking distance. But music as a necessity? Sure, life would be boring without it, but it's hardly essential to live.
I recently told a guy who is responsible for IT at a public school about Firefox. He had not heard of it.
Seems a lot of people who should be in-the-loop never are. My wife is a teacher, and her school board announced that they had acquired licenses for StarOffice and OpenOffice. Great, since we use OO.o at home. Weeks after the announcement, she went and talked to one of the IT guys at her school and his face went completely blank.
Stamps are US currency. Its a federal crime to damage one
Boy, I sure am glad my tax dollars are being used for something useful, like stopping people from mangling stamps. Asinine.
Your argument is that we shouldn't port OSS to Windows, because some Windows users, after using it, won't want to use it anymore?
Not even close.
My "argument" was that calling Microsoft with concerns about FOSS, to "drive them bonkers", as was suggested, will only result in Microsoft spreading FUD to the average user who doesn't know better. Does that seem unreasonable to you?
My comment illustrated what I consider a valid problem, and was neither an advocate nor a deterrant to developing FOSS for Windows.
error-chrcking
Clearly, I'm a FOSS developer who can't afford "error-checking" myself. D'oh!
While I try and use as much FOSS as I can, I can see your scenario causing some problems for Joe User.
User: "Hi, umm, Microsoft Support? Yeah, I'm trying to run this program called Gimp, and it seems to keep erroring out because of XYZ."
Microsoft: "That's because you're running software that is incompatible with Microsoft Windows. Most so-called 'open-source' software is not fully compatible, and can cause problems."
User: "Really?"
Microsoft: "Of course. How can they possibly afford error-chrcking, compatibility assurance, and quality development when they're offering the software for free?"
User: "Oh, ok. Can you recommend any alternatives then?"
Microsoft: "Certainly. You can use..."
Hey, I'm just suggesting...
30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it
At the last movie I saw, there were 7 commercials followed by 6 previews, for a total of 19 minutes. While not half an hour, it's still frightening.
I thought that it was normal corporate behaviour to look at their competitors.
Good gods. I'm not picking on you specifically, but since many other have posted the same comment in this thread, it's probably best to reiterate this guy's full quote.
As a policy, I don't run anything that competes with Microsoft... We do, in areas on the client, have an open-source client running--just for competitive analysis.
Hope that clears things up a wee bit.
To my knowledge, Opera hasn't patented tabbed browsing or mouse gestures. Am I wrong?
The box of copy paper sitting next to the printer would be able to hold about 1700 songs.
Clearly this is a threat that the RIAA never considered. The obvious solution is to produce paper with DRM built into it, such that it cannot be photocopied or scanned without first obtaining the appropriate permissions.
What a strange and often meaningless article.
60% of Brits keep 1000-2000 music files on their portable electronic devices
Is that really pack-rat nature? Portable music devices are popular because they hold lots of songs, so you don't have to drag around your 500-CD collection. I'd say it's more of a convenience issue than a hoarding issue. A better example of "hoarding" would be those people who download every single NES ROM they find on KaZaA "just to have it". I've talked to regular FPS addicts who have ROMs like "Sesame Street" and "Barbie" burned to their ROM discs for no reason other than to say they have X games.
He worked out that one gigabyte (1,073,741,824 bytes) was the equivalent of a pick-up truck filled with paper.
Does this even make sense to compare music files to a truck full of paper?
tell them to move you to their internal do not call list
Yeah, I've done this quite a few times. I keep one of those lists by the phone that runs you through all of the things to say, regarding call lists, parent-company lists, etc. It's had a bit of an effect, and has reduced the number of calls I get, but I still get too many for my liking. Maybe I've pissed somebody off, and they're signing me up. Who knows?
Also try the CMA do not call list
Well, I moved into the new place in June, and added my new number/address to their "don't mail/fax/call" list, but haven't seen much from that yet. I know it takes a while to kick in, but several months is pretty long. At the last place, it only took about 3 weeks.
Another thing that I get is callers asking for some random name (changes each time), and when I tell them that nobody by that name lives here, they immediately start with the "Well, maybe you'd be interested..." pitch. I don't know if they're doing it as a "we didn't call *you*, but got *you* on the line anyway" type defense.
A third thing I often get is messages left on my machine, offering mortage rates/vacations/etc. if I "call the following number". I don't know if this is related to the autodialers or not. If a machine is detected, leave the message. If a person answers, hang up. Maybe.
Sucks, in any case.
I swear, this is my biggest source of ire. At least once a week, I get a call from some autodialer. Even worse, I'd say that 3/4 of the time it fails to connect me to an operator, and just hangs up after 20 seconds.
Nothing like running for the phone, only to get dead air and a "click".
Firstly, Apple does not have a monopoly over all uses of the word "iTunes", if that were true then Microsoft could sue anyone that criticised Windows for trademark infringement.
Like this?
Remember: right or wrong, you can sue anybody if you've got cash to feed the lawyers.