[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1


On 3/11/2016 6:22 PM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-03-11, 4:11 PM Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 3/11/2016 4:19 PM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> No. It is a LibreOffice bug. You broke the usability of LibreOffice
>>> on Macs with your code change.

>> *I* broke it? Sorry Larry I'm just a user like you.

> It's obvious that "you" on a product mailing list refers to the LibreOffice developers.Quit
> being pedantic.

Actually, why don't you stop acting like a spoiled child?

>> Libreoffice *fixed* a bug that brought to light a Mac bug.

> No. LibreOffice broke it's usability on OS X. If it makes a product for OS X it should work for
> OS X as it currently exists.

And every time a new bug crops up in OSX, it is on every other software
developer to work around their bugs?

> It did not bring to light a Mac bug. The requirement for the older
> Apple developed version of Java to be installed has been known for
> several years and is mentioned in the installation notes.

And it is a BUG - or rather, a very poor Apple workaround for a long
standing (meaning may likely never get fixed so deal with it) Java bug.

But my understanding is that Apple *could* fix it, they just chose the
easiest way, probably because they don't give a crap about Java (just
like they ditched Flash support a very long time ago).

> By the way, the bug is in Java. The installation of the old Apple
> Java is the long-known workaround. The current version broke that
> functionality.

Correct - so complain to Apple about their crappy workaround, complain
to Oracle to fix the JRE, or stfu and just implement the new workaround
to install the JDK.

> Yeah. Mac users will deal with it. They'll quit using LibreOffice.

No, most will just install the JDK and move on.

>> The Libreoffice devs finally decided to make a change to their code that
>> stops 'working around' Apple's long standing bug (at least thats how I
>> read the comments)...
>
> Actually, it's a bug in Java.

I actually knew it was a Java bug, but it is apparently very long
standing, which means it may never get fixed. The bug I was referring to
above was Apple's BUGGY (lazy) workaround.

> You obviously didn't do a lot of research.

This is the first time I've seen *you* say it was a Java bug - which
begs the question, if you knew it was a Java bug, why are you
complaining here? So now it is Libreoffice's responsibility to not only
fix Apple bugs (lazy/crappy workarounds) but to fix Oracle JRE bugs as well?

>> There is a simple workaround that *you* can employ - install the JDK -
>> until Apple fixes *their* JRE package bug.

> And that fact is not mentioned in the installation instructions or
> in the release note.

This is really the only legitimate complaint that you have presented
during this entire riduculous thread.

> And until the release of 5.1 there was no need to install the JDK.

Things/requirements change.

> And, unless you are a developer, there is no other need for it.

Actually there is - it is now required if you want Libreoffice 5.1+ to
recognize Java8 on a Mac because of Apple's longstanding broken JRE
packaging and a very long standing bug in Java (or is it just the Java
packaging?) itself.

> Besides, it takes up a lot more disk space on your computer.

Rotflmao!

The exact same argument could be made about having to install the old,
extremely insecure Java6 just to make Java8 work.

> I have my own workaround. Use a different product.

Thank god its still a relatively free country.

> This bug will create a very negative impression of LibreOffice among Mac users. That is why I
> keep reiterating that LibreOffice needs to fix the problem
>
> Obviously you don't care about Mac users.

Wrong, I just don't care about cry babies who refuse to acknowledge
reality, but prefer to cry and threaten to hold their breath if they
don't get their way.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.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.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Follow-Ups:
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com>
References:
[tdf-discuss] Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com>
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Alexander Thurgood <alex.thurgood@gmail.com>
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com>
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com>
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Joel Madero <jmadero.dev@gmail.com>
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com>
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com>
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com>
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.