New: Kanri (Oct 09, 2024), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
No Ads November!, Please donate today

You are here

was not better just a single language ?

6 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Last post

February 2, 2011 - 7:32am

#1

Mariolv

Offline

Last seen: 11 months 4 weeks ago

Joined: 2011-02-02 07:19

was not better just a single language ?

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 ...

February 2, 2011 - 8:19am

#2

SakiTC

SakiTC's picture

Offline

Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago

Joined: 2008-06-13 02:05

The reason is...

The reason for this decision is given in The Document Foundation's blog (http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/01/25/the-document-foundation-la...):

(...) the Windows installer, which is going to impact the largest and most diverse user base, has been integrated into a single build containing all language versions, thus reducing the size for download sites from 75 to 11GB, making it easier for us to deploy new versions more rapidly and lowering the carbon footprint of the entire infrastructure (...)

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

February 2, 2011 - 9:06am

(Reply to #2) #3

CNBlackwood

Offline

Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago

Joined: 2008-07-11 10:09

Disk space vs. bandwidth?

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.

February 2, 2011 - 11:47am

(Reply to #3) #4

Mariolv

Offline

Last seen: 11 months 4 weeks ago

Joined: 2011-02-02 07:19

i'm agree with u CNB. ...

i'm agree with u CNB. ... i've same doubts ...

February 2, 2011 - 10:23am

#5

Moonbase

Offline

Last seen: 10 years 9 months ago

Joined: 2010-09-09 06:16

My 2 cents in: A vote for

My 2 cents in: A vote for keeping it multilingual.

February 2, 2011 - 11:53am

#6

John T. Haller

John T. Haller's picture

Offline

Last seen: 12 hours 36 min ago

Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21

3.3 Itself

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!

Log in or register to post comments