openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Brawley <>
Subject Re: download page misbehaviour
Date Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:55:17 GMT
On 2012-06-10 7:05 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Peter Brawley
> <>  wrote:
>> On 2012-06-09 10:30 AM, Peter Brawley wrote:
>>> On 64-bit Win 7 Pro, Chrome and the AOO download page misbehave together
>>> in these ways:
>>> (i) the page fails to check for existing versions, ie whether I need a
>>> virgin installation or merely an upgrade from 3.3 to 3.4
> Correct.  To tell whether you have an existing version installed would
> require that we scan your local file system.  Web pages tend not to do
> that, (or at least users don't welcome this) due to security
> implications.  But what we do have is an update checker in OpenOffice
> itself, that will check whether there is an update available and
> prompt the user if there is.
> But note that there is only a single install for OpenOffice, the same
> download serves both new installs and upgrades.
>>> (ii) Chrome identifies the page as incorrectly secured, yet the download
>>> begins
>>> (iii) during that, if I answer 'Yes' to the question do I want to run the
>>> page despite its inadequate security, Chrome launches a second download.
> So some odd things happening here with Chrome.  We should test this.
>>> All this began when I found I'd fatally wounded my OO3.3 installation by
>>> deleting its redundant desktop icon.
>>> There's OO work to do.
>> I should've mentioned that I'd removed the desktop icon because I'd moved a
>> copy of it to QuickLaunch. Unfortunately, deleting the desktop icon disabled
>> the QuickLaunch icon and made OO3.3 non-functional. That shouldn't happen.
> I have not seen that happen before.  An icon is just an icon.  You
> should be able to delete it, move it, copy. etc., freely.
>> Back to the 3.4 installation. Once the download is finished, I click on the
>> downloaded file, expecting to find an installer to run. Not. Instead, I'm
>> greeted by a dialog that tells me the package is from an unknown source.
>> Really, AOO couldn't get this wee detail sorted?
> Did you catch what program was surfacing that dialog?  It wasn't an
> OpenOffice dialog.  It sounds maybe like your anti-virus software?
Errm, that's a well-known Windows functionality, checking whether the 
maker of the software you're installing is registered with MS.
>> Do I want to run it anyway? Why yes. I'm expecting an installation to begin.
>> Not. It merely unpacks the package, leaving behind a desktop icon for
>> itself. AOO couldn't figure out how to automate this step? Oh wait, mebbe
>> the AOO folks want to give me a choice about I begin the installation. I
>> double-click on the desktop icon. Up comes a list of fle sin the package.
> The install should just kick off.  You should not need to guess what
> file to run.
The overall impression this process gave was that OO3.4 ain't ready for 
prime time.



>> They include an .msi file and a setup.exe. in Windows, you should be able to
>> install by double-clicking on the .msi. here, not: I get a dialog telling me
>> to run setup.exe. Duh. If that's the case, why not just run that
>> automatically rather than  wasting my time with this fake work with these
>> fake choices?
>> So on we go. Again I get an option to create a desktop icon. I want a
>> QuickLaunch icon, not a desktop icon. But if I turn the former into the
>> latter, I'll break OO. Never mind, I'll create my own.
>> Soon I see another dialog, asking me to end existing OO processes. Yikes, I
>> have to start over.
>> When I'm done, I create my own QuickLaunch icon.
>> There are installation glitches to fix.
> Has anyone else run into the behavior reported here?  I've personally
> tested Win 7 Ultimate 32-bit and this does not happen.  (But I did it
> with system I.E., not with Chrome).
> -Rob
>> PB
>>> PB

View raw message