<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - The lang-pack installation mechanism on OSX unacceptable -- needs refactoring for better installation UX" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89657#c26">Comment # 26</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - The lang-pack installation mechanism on OSX unacceptable -- needs refactoring for better installation UX" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89657">bug 89657</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:sierkb@gmx.de" title="Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>"> Sierk Bornemann</a> <pre>(In reply to barefootguru from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=89657#c7">comment #7</a>) > 3. Have one download which includes all languages, like every other Mac app +1 (!) (In reply to steve -_- from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=89657#c16">comment #16</a>) > Raising importance to high | major [...] > There must be a better way to deal with this situation. I don't think > ignoring it, will make it go away. +1 (!) (In reply to barefootguru from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=89657#c18">comment #18</a>) [...] > I think the current system is unacceptable and user hostile: > > - you shouldn't have to download 2 things to install LO. Almost no other > Mac app has this requirement [...] > LO needs a single installer or drag-and-drop install, like almost every > other Mac app. [...] > It should be: > > 1. Download LO > 2. Install LO > 3. Run LO (LO remembers your language preference) +1 (!) (In reply to Frank Fuchs from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=89657#c20">comment #20</a>) [...] > The problem is even worse than barefootguru described: Because the language > packs are not signed, you have open the language pack (the one within the > .dmg) with a "right click" and then acknowledge installing from an unsigned > installation package - something Apple warns you not to do. > If you look at all these steps needed, I'm fairly sure a "normal" (i.e. > non-IT) user will have major difficulties and likely fail w/o IT support. > > My 2 cents: > I think the LO team needs to accept that support for a specific platform > like OSX requires a "minimum" of platform specific support - and this starts > with a user-friendly and secure way to install the application in line with > the operating system's guidelines. > And: If I look at the Windows version of LO, it certainly uses a lot of > Windows-specific installation magic (e.g. the registry) to ensure proper > installation. > > My recommendation: > If the LO team is unsure about the best "long-term" solution, a "quick fix" > needs to be provided, soon. I believe an easy one is to provide exactly one > single *signed* package (including all the language files). While this > requires somewhat more space on your permanent storage device, I'm firmly > convinced that this is the lesser evil (esp. taking into account current > storage medium prices). That'll give everyone enough time to work on a more > intelligent installation process (maybe like the one on Windows where you > select what parts of LO and which languages you want to install). +1 (!)</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>