Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Il 03/02/2014 17:47, Kracked_P_P---webmaster ha scritto:
On 02/03/2014 08:48 AM, Marcello Romani wrote:
Il 03/02/2014 13:21, IOmazic ha scritto:
Hi,

is it possible that you share this tools for windows? I will need to
install
it to around 450 pc, so it will be cool to have some tool to do all
modification needed.

Kind regards,
Ivan Omazic



-----
Ivan Omazic
IT Assistant / Technical Lead
iomazic@wmo.int
+41 22 730 81 55
+41 79 918 34 26
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-deployment-tp4077035p4095225.html

Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


This might prove a useful starting point:

https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=28765&start=0


Why are people still sending others to the OpenOffice.org web site for
information about LibreOffice?

For this posted need, I remember hearing about "deployment" of LO on a
LO web page.  Although LO was a fork of OOo from several years ago, it
is "grown" past those roots now.  If we do not have the needed
documentation now, we should really make it a priority to set up a web
site/page to talk about IT management deployment of LO, including
network based.

The current AOO/OOo web site should not be the place where people go to
get information about LO.  From a marketing aspect, this could lead
business users to think we are not the package to use, but AOO is.  That
is wrong way of doing "business".

SO, just from the marketing aspect to businesses, this needs to be
resolved.  From the typical user, this could be an issue as well.

I stopped using OOo when LO came out.  I do not want to have to explain
to users that LO's documentation site[s] is not the place to find the
needed information to migrate/deploy LO to their systems.

Would you tell the UK tech advisors to not consider LO for the open
source option to using the mandated ODF file format requirements, but to
go with AOO/OOo since we do not have the needed documentation?  We would
be saying this if we tell them to go to the OOo web site for the
deployment information.

I see too many of these postings telling users to go to the OOo site[s]
for the needed information or extension/template download.  Yes, there
may be something there that LO currently does not have, but it should
not be the first option.  LO needs to rely on LO's sites to give the
user the help and support they need.

I do not use Nabble, but I would think that there must be a forum there
about business migration and deployment.  IF not, then there should be.

Am I alone in this opinion?






Googled for a solution.
Found an interesting thread.
Thought it could be useful to the OP.
Posted it.

I don't get what all this whining is about.

Is there LO-specific information around, or some tutorial that doesn't involve OO? Fine, somebody is goind to come up with it (you didn't, by the way. Just sayin') As an example, V Stuart Foote provided a more general solution to the OP problem in this same thread.

--
Marcello Romani

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.