Hi,
With yum I recently upgraded to openoffice 2.3 from version 2.2.1. This new version is a disaster (see below).
Can I downgrade back to 2.2.1 with yum?
Thanks, Rob.
The problem with the new version of OOo: I have large documents with lots of formulas. Editing a single formula takes 20 to 30 seconds to open the formula editor (with 2.2.1 this took less than an eye blink).
Of course, openoffice is to blame here with this miserable release. There is a fix upcoming but that takes too long (probably mid December avaliable).
My work depends on openoffice; hence I want to downgrade back to 2.2.1. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Rob wrote:
Hi,
With yum I recently upgraded to openoffice 2.3 from version 2.2.1. This new version is a disaster (see below).
Can I downgrade back to 2.2.1 with yum?
You can use yum-allowdowngrade plugin available in the repository or manually download the old version (if it is not already in the yum cache) and install it using rpm --oldpackage argument.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Rob wrote:
Hi,
With yum I recently upgraded to openoffice 2.3 from version 2.2.1. This new version is a disaster (see below).
Can I downgrade back to 2.2.1 with yum?
You can use yum-allowdowngrade plugin available in the repository or manually download the old version (if it is not already in the yum cache) and install it using rpm --oldpackage argument.
Rahul
Another choice seems to be to google the Open Office web page and d/l Open Office 2.3 and see if the author's version works better than the fedora version. I may do the same thing since there seems to be smoke about OO on this list.
Rob wrote:
... My work depends on openoffice; hence I want to downgrade back to 2.2.1.
Downgrading is probably the best course, but the performance issue looks like it's fixed in the current snapshot as well. The snapshots install independently of the stable releases, so that might also be a possibility for an easier fix until 2.3.1 is released. I have 2.3 from F7 and OO.org, as well as snapshots for 2.3.1 and 2.4 currently installed--Whee!
Obviously, it's a snapshot, so it could be unstable--you'd have to remember that and make sure you have safe backups, but hopefully you're doing that already.
<Joe
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Karl Larsen wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Rob wrote:
Hi,
With yum I recently upgraded to openoffice 2.3 from version 2.2.1. This new version is a disaster (see below).
Can I downgrade back to 2.2.1 with yum?
You can use yum-allowdowngrade plugin available in the repository or manually download the old version (if it is not already in the yum cache) and install it using rpm --oldpackage argument.
Rahul
Another choice seems to be to google the Open Office web page and d/l Open Office 2.3 and see if the author's version works better than the fedora version. I may do the same thing since there seems to be smoke about OO on this list.
I haven't really exercised it (2.3.0) all that much but what I've done was done exactly as I expected. Eg, it Just Worked(TM).
To Rahul: Are there concerns re patents that make RH pull stuff out of OOo?
Gene Heskett wrote:
I haven't really exercised it (2.3.0) all that much but what I've done was done exactly as I expected. Eg, it Just Worked(TM).
To Rahul: Are there concerns re patents that make RH pull stuff out of OOo?
There was a mix of stuff. Some Java portions used to not work well with GCJ. There was concern over patents in other features. Sun has a patent cross licensing agreement with Microsoft that makes them immune to these problems so it might be that they wouldn't care but if affects everybody else including end users who don't use Staroffice (which gets some kind of patent license as a commercial product).
Rahul
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
I haven't really exercised it (2.3.0) all that much but what I've done was done exactly as I expected. Eg, it Just Worked(TM).
To Rahul: Are there concerns re patents that make RH pull stuff out of OOo?
There was a mix of stuff. Some Java portions used to not work well with GCJ. There was concern over patents in other features. Sun has a patent cross licensing agreement with Microsoft that makes them immune to these problems so it might be that they wouldn't care but if affects everybody else including end users who don't use Staroffice (which gets some kind of patent license as a commercial product).
Rahul
In defense of that, it might be enlightening to take a survey and see how many folks try to use the java tools fedora supplies vs folks that dl and install their java directly from sun. I'm in the probably 95% column that did that. And it Just Works(TM).
That's not saying you (speaking as RH) are wrong, but that is how many will perceive it, they somehow expecting RH to shoulder the legal liability for that and which is not at all realistic to ask. It appears to us that it is perfectly legal for us to do so however, so we don't always accept that condescension quietly.
The only place where I have a personal distaste is that when we do that, then RH/Fedora seems to want to say that we are the sinners in this nearly religious perfect adherence to the GPL. As users, we just want it to work, and TBT it does.
Can you imagine the hoorah that would be created if sun (or M$ for that matter) were to go after each of us JRE downloaders individually? I suspect that would ultimately cause the demise of 'the big bad wolf' regardless of the security pass on the left breast pocket's issuer, and they damned well know it. I'd think it would also be laughed out of court as entrapment because its freely offered for download, fully customized to run on linux.
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 12:53 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
I haven't really exercised it (2.3.0) all that much but what I've done was done exactly as I expected. Eg, it Just Worked(TM).
To Rahul: Are there concerns re patents that make RH pull stuff out of OOo?
There was a mix of stuff. Some Java portions used to not work well with GCJ. There was concern over patents in other features. Sun has a patent cross licensing agreement with Microsoft that makes them immune to these problems so it might be that they wouldn't care but if affects everybody else including end users who don't use Staroffice (which gets some kind of patent license as a commercial product).
Rahul
In defense of that, it might be enlightening to take a survey and see how many folks try to use the java tools fedora supplies vs folks that dl and install their java directly from sun. I'm in the probably 95% column that did that. And it Just Works(TM).
That's not saying you (speaking as RH) are wrong, but that is how many will perceive it, they somehow expecting RH to shoulder the legal liability for that and which is not at all realistic to ask. It appears to us that it is perfectly legal for us to do so however, so we don't always accept that condescension quietly.
The only place where I have a personal distaste is that when we do that, then RH/Fedora seems to want to say that we are the sinners in this nearly religious perfect adherence to the GPL. As users, we just want it to work, and TBT it does.
Can you imagine the hoorah that would be created if sun (or M$ for that matter) were to go after each of us JRE downloaders individually? I suspect that would ultimately cause the demise of 'the big bad wolf' regardless of the security pass on the left breast pocket's issuer, and they damned well know it. I'd think it would also be laughed out of court as entrapment because its freely offered for download, fully customized to run on linux.
---- I hate it when you misinform...
the big issue with Sun's JRE is that there was a restrictive license and even though they have been transferring all of the bits to GPL, some parts have been stragglers and preventing large scale adoption into a GPL distribution.
There is no one to sue, there never was a problem with liability, incorrectness nor any problem other than Sun's java was never fully, completely GPL licensed...apparently that's complete now.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 12:53 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
Rahul
In defense of that, it might be enlightening to take a survey and see how many folks try to use the java tools fedora supplies vs folks that dl and install their java directly from sun. I'm in the probably 95% column that did that. And it Just Works(TM).
Fedora licensing guidelines does not allow software with non-free or patent issues and regardless of how many use it or not, Fedora wouldn't include it. Btw, the java portions are old news since Fedora 8 includes IcedTea, derivative of OpenJDK which is Sun Java under GPL+classpath exception. Very few people use the Java related portions really.
That's not saying you (speaking as RH) are wrong, but that is how many will perceive it, they somehow expecting RH to shoulder the legal liability for that and which is not at all realistic to ask. It appears to us that it is perfectly legal for us to do so however, so we don't always accept that condescension quietly.
I am not speaking for anyone but myself anywhere unless explicitly stated. It isn't "perfectly legal" to use patent infringing software if you are in a region that enforces patents on software.
The only place where I have a personal distaste is that when we do that, then RH/Fedora seems to want to say that we are the sinners in this nearly religious perfect adherence to the GPL. As users, we just want it to work, and TBT it does.
I don't see anybody anywhere from Red Hat or Fedora telling you in any official capacity what to do with non-free software. I have seen people explain many times what they do or what constraints they operate under which is entirely different.
Can you imagine the hoorah that would be created if sun (or M$ for that matter) were to go after each of us JRE downloaders individually? I suspect that would ultimately cause the demise of 'the big bad wolf' regardless of the security pass on the left breast pocket's issuer, and they damned well know it. I'd think it would also be laughed out of court as entrapment because its freely offered for download, fully customized to run on linux.
Again, end users can and have been sued for patent infringement before but the exclusion of Sun Java had nothing to do with patents and everything to do with copyright licenses which are getting fixed.
http://www.press.redhat.com/2007/11/05/red-hat-helps-advance-open-source-jav...
Rahul
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 12:53 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
I haven't really exercised it (2.3.0) all that much but what I've done was done exactly as I expected. Eg, it Just Worked(TM).
To Rahul: Are there concerns re patents that make RH pull stuff out of OOo?
There was a mix of stuff. Some Java portions used to not work well with GCJ. There was concern over patents in other features. Sun has a patent cross licensing agreement with Microsoft that makes them immune to these problems so it might be that they wouldn't care but if affects everybody else including end users who don't use Staroffice (which gets some kind of patent license as a commercial product).
Rahul
In defense of that, it might be enlightening to take a survey and see how many folks try to use the java tools fedora supplies vs folks that dl and install their java directly from sun. I'm in the probably 95% column that did that. And it Just Works(TM).
That's not saying you (speaking as RH) are wrong, but that is how many will perceive it, they somehow expecting RH to shoulder the legal liability for that and which is not at all realistic to ask. It appears to us that it is perfectly legal for us to do so however, so we don't always accept that condescension quietly.
The only place where I have a personal distaste is that when we do that, then RH/Fedora seems to want to say that we are the sinners in this nearly religious perfect adherence to the GPL. As users, we just want it to work, and TBT it does.
Can you imagine the hoorah that would be created if sun (or M$ for that matter) were to go after each of us JRE downloaders individually? I suspect that would ultimately cause the demise of 'the big bad wolf' regardless of the security pass on the left breast pocket's issuer, and they damned well know it. I'd think it would also be laughed out of court as entrapment because its freely offered for download, fully customized to run on linux.
I hate it when you misinform...
:( Its not intentional Craig.
the big issue with Sun's JRE is that there was a restrictive license and even though they have been transferring all of the bits to GPL, some parts have been stragglers and preventing large scale adoption into a GPL distribution.
There is no one to sue, there never was a problem with liability, incorrectness nor any problem other than Sun's java was never fully, completely GPL licensed...apparently that's complete now.
I wasn't aware the transition was complete now, I've been on the road with much more important things on my mind since a week ago last Monday, saying goodbye to a dying daughter. Cancer. Now I'm trying to catch up while waiting for the phone to ring when she is gone.
The last time I looked at it, several months ago after they had released some of it, the styling was totally strange to me, and dependencies by the gross were on the missing list so I just nuked what I'd downloaded. I haven't looked since so thanks for bringing me somewhat more uptodate.
But whats this about a cross-licensing with M$? To me, that's another can of worms that once opened, will take a much larger container to store them in.
Craig
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 12:53 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
Rahul
In defense of that, it might be enlightening to take a survey and see how many folks try to use the java tools fedora supplies vs folks that dl and install their java directly from sun. I'm in the probably 95% column that did that. And it Just Works(TM).
Fedora licensing guidelines does not allow software with non-free or patent issues and regardless of how many use it or not, Fedora wouldn't include it. Btw, the java portions are old news since Fedora 8 includes IcedTea, derivative of OpenJDK which is Sun Java under GPL+classpath exception. Very few people use the Java related portions really.
That's not saying you (speaking as RH) are wrong, but that is how many will perceive it, they somehow expecting RH to shoulder the legal liability for that and which is not at all realistic to ask. It appears to us that it is perfectly legal for us to do so however, so we don't always accept that condescension quietly.
I am not speaking for anyone but myself anywhere unless explicitly stated. It isn't "perfectly legal" to use patent infringing software if you are in a region that enforces patents on software.
The only place where I have a personal distaste is that when we do that, then RH/Fedora seems to want to say that we are the sinners in this nearly religious perfect adherence to the GPL. As users, we just want it to work, and TBT it does.
I don't see anybody anywhere from Red Hat or Fedora telling you in any official capacity what to do with non-free software. I have seen people explain many times what they do or what constraints they operate under which is entirely different.
Can you imagine the hoorah that would be created if sun (or M$ for that matter) were to go after each of us JRE downloaders individually? I suspect that would ultimately cause the demise of 'the big bad wolf' regardless of the security pass on the left breast pocket's issuer, and they damned well know it. I'd think it would also be laughed out of court as entrapment because its freely offered for download, fully customized to run on linux.
Again, end users can and have been sued for patent infringement before
But those cases are very few and far between considering the "perceived" number of violations extant. As predicted, out of the most famous of those, the SCO debacle, only the lawyers will actually see any grocery money from that. Neither IBM nor NOVEL will see 1% of whats owed them by the time the fat lady sings. SCO is doing their damnedest to burn through whats left in spite of the bankruptcy rules. They are NOT going to go after a Joe & Jill Sixpack with $275 in the bank.
but the exclusion of Sun Java had nothing to do with patents and everything to do with copyright licenses which are getting fixed.
http://www.press.redhat.com/2007/11/05/red-hat-helps-advance-open-source-jav a/
Rahul
So that is the reason Rh bought jboss. That makes it clearer, but isn't this then a fork that will be a nightmare to re-merge when the issues are settled?
Gene Heskett wrote:
But those cases are very few and far between considering the "perceived" number of violations extant. As predicted, out of the most famous of those, the SCO debacle, only the lawyers will actually see any grocery money from that. Neither IBM nor NOVEL will see 1% of whats owed them by the time the fat lady sings. SCO is doing their damnedest to burn through whats left in spite of the bankruptcy rules. They are NOT going to go after a Joe & Jill Sixpack with $275 in the bank.
Well that's easy to say unless you get caught in a patent lawsuit. Even getting a wrong one out of court can set you back by a few million dollars. Don't think SCO case didn't cause serious money for everyone involved.
but the exclusion of Sun Java had nothing to do with patents and everything to do with copyright licenses which are getting fixed.
http://www.press.redhat.com/2007/11/05/red-hat-helps-advance-open-source-jav a/
Rahul
So that is the reason Rh bought jboss. That makes it clearer, but isn't this then a fork that will be a nightmare to re-merge when the issues are settled?
What fork? OpenJDK and IcedTea has very few differences. GCJ is not a fork but a entirely separate implementation which has a few advantages still like more architecture support, native compilation and so on.
Rahul
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
But those cases are very few and far between considering the "perceived" number of violations extant. As predicted, out of the most famous of those, the SCO debacle, only the lawyers will actually see any grocery money from that. Neither IBM nor NOVEL will see 1% of whats owed them by the time the fat lady sings. SCO is doing their damnedest to burn through whats left in spite of the bankruptcy rules. They are NOT going to go after a Joe & Jill Sixpack with $275 in the bank.
Well that's easy to say unless you get caught in a patent lawsuit. Even getting a wrong one out of court can set you back by a few million dollars. Don't think SCO case didn't cause serious money for everyone involved.
As I said, the only winners were the legal people.
[...]
What fork? OpenJDK and IcedTea has very few differences. GCJ is not a fork but a entirely separate implementation which has a few advantages still like more architecture support, native compilation and so on.
Rahul
We'll have to look at that when I finally update this box to F8. How well does it integrate with firefox will probably set the tone of the discussions.
Thanks.