ea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 14:14
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies
>
> On 01/11/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> > 1. We don't have a Win64 version of AOO available for
Am 03.11.2015 um 01:23 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> I have no idea of the frequency of that situation.
>
Hi,
On the user forum it occurs several times per month.
The list box of availlable JREs should not include 64-bit JREs.
It should have a label such as "Suitable 32-bit Java Runtimes on this
The argument for Win64 is that there may be many people who know and
care little about Java, but have it already installed for reasons other
than AOO. Those installations are much more likely to be Win64 than x86.
Because AOO is x86 only it has to ask for an x86 JRE, even if there is a
perfect
On 10/29/2015 02:22 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 10/29/2015 12:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>
>> wrote:
> ...
>>> Three paths come to mind.
>>>
>>> A. Remove the Java dependencies.
>>>
>>
>> Impossible. JDBC drivers for example, ar
On 01/11/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
1. We don't have a Win64 version of AOO available for download.
This has never been a major request from our users, and also technically
speaking the benefits a user would gain by running a 64-bit version are
not so big. Sure, it look modern and it is goo
t: Sunday, November 1, 2015 09:22
> > To: Apache OO
> > Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Usability of Non-Optional Java Dependencies
> [ ... ]
> >
> > To summarise, users are beaten through a gauntlet of serious usability
> > problems when Java isn't successfull
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Just to note some things related to a Win64 port:
>
> - In order to support win64 builds we would have to add a win64 bridge
> which we currently don’t have. The process is similar to porting to a new
> architecture: mail archives should have
Just to note some things related to a Win64 port:
- In order to support win64 builds we would have to add a win64 bridge which we
currently don’t have. The process is similar to porting to a new architecture:
mail archives should have a message from Tor Lillquist who did the LibreOffice
port an
Damjan,
Thanks for the great summary of the situation, below. I have a few supporting
comments there.
> -Original Message-
> From: Damjan Jovanovic [mailto:dam...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 09:22
> To: Apache OO
> Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Usability
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:14 PM, C&A Säger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please load the following screen shot:
> > http://www.mediafire.com/view/sqwigulqh8yfziu/JavaOptionsWin64.png
>
> The screenshot shows the Java options for a Win64 system with a 64-bit
> Java highlighted (C:\Program Files\...) while the
Hi,
Please load the following screen shot:
> http://www.mediafire.com/view/sqwigulqh8yfziu/JavaOptionsWin64.png
The screenshot shows the Java options for a Win64 system with a 64-bit
Java highlighted (C:\Program Files\...) while the selected one is "bad"
the currently active JRE.
1. This is what
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 10/29/2015 12:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>> Three paths come to mind.
>>>
>>> A. Remove the Java dependencies.
>>>
>>>
>> Impossible. JDBC drivers f
On 10/29/2015 07:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> Three paths come to mind.
>> A. Remove the Java dependencies.
> Impossible. JDBC drivers for example, are the lifeblood of Base.
FWIW, the hardest, to the point of being impossible to replace, is the
stuff that a11y tools rely on.
jonathon
---
On 10/29/2015 12:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
...
Three paths come to mind.
A. Remove the Java dependencies.
Impossible. JDBC drivers for example, are the lifeblood of Base.
It depends on what you mean by "Impossible". For e
Thank you, to both of you, for the confirmation and the linked references.
Greg
On 10/29/2015 1:07 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
It's not just third-party reports like the one both you and I have cited.
Oracle also documents its installation of adware/spyware with Java:
http://www.java.com/en/downlo
I checked my Java Control Panel and I have "Suppress sponsor offers when
installing or updating Java" checked, so my install experience is not
useful information.
I don't remember checking it, but it would be a no-brainer first time I
saw it in the control panel, considering how I feel about t
It's not just third-party reports like the one both you and I have cited.
Oracle also documents its installation of adware/spyware with Java:
http://www.java.com/en/download/faq/ask_toolbar.xml
tells expert users how to bypass it:
http://www.java.com/en/download/faq/disable_offers.xml
and disinge
See for example
http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-close-look-at-how-oracle-installs-deceptive-software-with-java-updates/
S.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Greg Bullock wrote:
> Would you confirm that, about the adware/spyware tricks? If confirmed,
> that would definitely interest me.
>
> Perh
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> The Java dependency problem keeps coming up buried in other threads. I am
> redirecting the most recent case so we can put light on this situation.
>
> Before the dependencies on Java are increased/improved, I think there is a
> crucia
In that case, the basic program should definitely be in Java, to avoid
buffer overflows, undefined operations, and pointer arithmetic.
The Java security issues are associated with attempts to run untrusted
code in various controlled environments. That includes applets, as well
as well as dynam
See, for example,
http://superuser.com/questions/549028/how-can-i-prevent-ask-com-toolbar-from-being-installed-every-time-java-is-update
I just did a simple default install of the current JRE, and it did not
offer Ask.com, so maybe Oracle has seen the error of their ways.
On 10/29/2015 11:57
Would you confirm that, about the adware/spyware tricks? If confirmed,
that would definitely interest me.
Perhaps it's just my obliviousness or rapidly fading memory, but I don't
recall ever seeing a trap on Oracle's Java download trying to install
adware/spyware.
http://www.oracle.com/tech
For AOO to achieve its full potential it must be possible to use it
while assuming "Java" refers to an island one of whose exports is coffee
beans.
However, in normal home and office environments, the people doing
installation are often more technically knowledgeable, and more likely
to RTFM
One more factor to consider is that the official Java installer promoted by
Oracle tries really hard to trick the end-user into installing
adware/spyware at the same time. We used to avoid this in the Sun installer
by bundling Java, but having it as an external dependency for new AOO users
means th
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:44:52 -0700
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
> The Java dependency problem keeps coming up buried in other threads. I am
> redirecting the most recent case so we can put light on this situation.
>
> Before the dependencies on Java are increased/improved, I think there is a
>
The Java dependency problem keeps coming up buried in other threads. I am
redirecting the most recent case so we can put light on this situation.
Before the dependencies on Java are increased/improved, I think there is a
crucial usability matter.
1. Currently users are trap-doored by exercisi
26 matches
Mail list logo
