of @ bh: I don't see a chance in the near future to do so. Features like system
integration are not working.

Hello,

what "systems integration"? Which other features would not work?

In any case, having a maybe limited OOo may be better than having
no OOo, in my humble opinion. It would also simplify pressing
M$O users who send those .doc and .xls files to read .sx* files
in turn.

Other than that, I'm sort of happy with OOo on my fvwm desktop
with no "integration".

Saying "NO" to at least the Windows registry should also rather
remove some problem or other instead of creating them.

Just my $.02.

Thanks for listening.

I'm worrying if to pass this request to the requirements user. I think 
no, should be closed as INVALID, because of comments from of; I completely 
agree with him. 
 
You are not installing MS Office from the ZIP file too, for example. 
 
BTW if you want to really install OOo in this way, download binary 
packages (available in all distributions and will be available for OOo 
2.0) and extract binaries from them. The command for this is: 
 
  rpm2cpio RPM-PACKAGE | cpio -idv 
 

Well, I don't install M$ anyway because I'm using the *nix variety of systems. I
also wasn't after making it easier for *me* because I'm versed enough to cope
with a number of problems already. OOo is easy enough for *me*, but that wasn't
the starting point of this discussion.

What other features besides "system integration" would not work?
Why wouldn't they work (neither of you answered this one yet)?

Why do you have to do it the "M$ way" if you set out to make things
*better* (or didn't you, and I only missed the point)?

Downloading binary packages per distribution is _not_ appealing
to me. Eg., I run Debian and feel uncomforable with the Debian
packaging of OOo and its use for production purposes...

What about tar'ing (zip'ing) up an installed tree of OOo and shipping
that to a different machine? Will it work, or break?

I mostly have those Windows users on my mind who are unprivileged,
or anxious of breaking *something* (and rather computer illiterate).
Such people can be made to run Mozilla out of a zip file, but tend
to stay away from OOo because of fear of registry pollution...

> What other features besides "system integration" would not work? 
> Why wouldn't they work (neither of you answered this one yet)? 
 
  This is question for more MS Windows oriented people, because I'm the 
UN*X man for a long time. But basicaly, installation program is here to 
check some number of dependencies (like j2re, modules selection for 
install, registering as installed application, registered extensions, ...). 
You can't achieve this with your way and you should implement installer 
features directly into the OOo. 
 
> Why do you have to do it the "M$ way" if you set out to make things 
> *better* (or didn't you, and I only missed the point)? 
 
  This is not better (from my point of view) and you didn't convinced 
me that the archive (zip, tar, ...) distribution is better. Better for 
you is not better for me, better for me is not better for you, each 
person has different priorities - but we should think like ordinary 
user. 
 
> What about tar'ing (zip'ing) up an installed tree of OOo and shipping 
> that to a different machine? Will it work, or break? 
 
  Regarding to the GNU/Linux - it will work. Everything is installed 
in one directory, you can tar it and distribute it to a different 
machine. Of course, you'll loose things like menu integration, because 
they are stored in your ~/. 
 
> I mostly have those Windows users on my mind who are unprivileged, 
> or anxious of breaking *something* (and rather computer illiterate). 
> Such people can be made to run Mozilla out of a zip file, but tend 
> to stay away from OOo because of fear of registry pollution... 
 
  Look at the installer for MS Windows. Few questions and package installed 
in a few minutes. If we will use your solution there will be lot of users 
complaining about: 
 
  - non working java (no j2re setup during installation) 
  - no menu integration 
  - no extensions registered 
  - I dislike part XX, this part is big, how can I remove it 
  - how can I upgrade my OOo? replace all files? remove dir first and 
    copy new files only? 
  - ... 
 
  I think that the installer should follow common "rules" like other 
programs on the same platform. And if not, it should be much better. 
MS Windows (setup.exe), GNU/Linux (deb, rpm), Solaris (packages), ... 
 

OpenOffice.org Issue Tracker - Feedback Request.

The Issue you raised is currently 'Unconfirmed' pending review, but has not been
updated within the last 3 years. Please consider re-testing with one of the
latest versions of OOo, as the problem(s) may have already been addressed.
Either use the recent stable version: http://download.openoffice.org/index.html
or consider trying the new OOo 3 BETA (still in testing):
http://download.openoffice.org/3.0beta/
 
Please report back the outcome so this Issue may be Closed or Progressed as
necessary - otherwise it may be Resolved as Invalid in the future. You may also
wish to search for (and note) any duplicates of this Issue that may have
advanced further by checking the Issue Tracker:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/query.cgi
 
Many thanks,
Andrew
 
Cleaning-up and Closing old Issues as part of:
~ The Grand Bug Squash, pre v3 ~
http://marketing.openoffice.org/3.0/announcementbeta.html

To grep the issues easier via "requirements" I put the issues currently lying on
my owner to the owner "requirements". 

Created attachment 72971

That would be very useful function. Right now, it has to be done via administrative installation, which is too much hassle.