Great ... i belive a lot in this new project of TDF ... but i asked me: was not better just a single language package than a multilanguage installation?
now the installation is more harder and slower for the portable application imho ...
New: Run-Command (Dec 2, 2024), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
No Ads Nov/Dec!, Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
The reason for this decision is given in The Document Foundation's blog (http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/01/25/the-document-foundation-la...):
I agree that it would be better if portable version was as small as possible, but I guess that repackaging would be much harder and more time consuming.
No typin th las lette ca sav yo plent o spac
I read that explanation from TDF earlier and was confused. A single language version should be smaller than a multi-language version. It's only now that it occurs to me that they must be referring to the amount of disk space required at the download site. ([number of languages] * [single language size] = 75GB, 1 * [multi-language size] = 11GB).
I'm still confused though. I would have thought that bandwidth would be more important than disk space to a download site and having everyone download a larger multi-language version is going to increase the bandwidth required.
i'm agree with u CNB. ... i've same doubts ...
My 2 cents in: A vote for keeping it multilingual.
The big difference in size is actually 3.3 itself. A local English-only install of LibreOffice 3.3 is 440MB (excluding your data). The full multi-lingual LibreOffice 3.3 contained in LibreOffice Portable (excluding your data) is 421MB.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!