Re: [libreoffice-l10n] LibO for kids?

Στις 29/10/2011 12:33 μμ, ο/η andré έγραψε:
> Rimas Kudelis a écrit :
> > Hello all,
> >
> > 2011.08.23 13:49, Javier Sola rašė:
> > > On 8/20/11 2:32 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > > > Hi Javier, *,
> > > > > Will single language packages not be made available, as was the case
> > > > > with
> > > > > OpenOffice before?
> > > > Yes, it was a deliberate decision to only provide one single installer
> > > > with all languages for Windows.
> > > I am trying to understand the logic of this.
> > >
> > > 1.- Single package for all languages + separate packs for help:
> > >
> > > - They occupy less in the servers, because there are no complete
> > > installers for each language.
> > > - The installer is in English (a foreign language in most cases).
> > > - Users must install all least two packages.
> > > - Requires post-handling of language settings (in English, most
> > > usually a foreign language).
> > > - Requires understanding how to do this. Definitely not what beginners
> > > want.
> > > 2.- Single packages for each language:
> > >
> > > - They occupy more space in servers.
> > > - They use the standard practice in most software of one installer for
> > > the application.
> > >   - They are in the local language in most cases.
> > > - If well done, they do not require post-handling of language settings.
> > > - A beginner can install the application in her/his own language
> > > without much fuzz.
> > >
> > > Some users, in developed countries, download installers from the web.
> > > In developing countries, they do not have the bandwith to do this,
> > > distribution is through CDs.
> > > For large installations, it is always done through CDs or network.
> > >
> > > Would it not be interesting to facilitate the labor of distribution by
> > > producing packages that are easier to install by everybody (single
> > > installers fully in local language)? For most of the people that we
> > > work with (school teachers who do not speak English), the difference
> > > is between being able to do it or not.
> >
> > There is also a third approach that I keep reminding people of: a
> > modular installer. IMO, it would bring the best of two worlds, but it
> > would require someone to spend time implementing it. Here's how it would
> > work:
> > 1) the user downloads a single file.
> >     option a) it's a *small* installer file. This file only contains the
> > installer code, license, and configuration data, but no packages.
> >     option b) it's a bundle, which contains the above file (the actual
> > installer) and a few default packages  (e.g. the suite and en-US
> > language pack). When started, it unpacks all files into some folder (as
> > is done now), then launches the actual installer.
> > 2) when started, the actual installer allows the user to choose the
> > components to be installed
> > 3) after the user chooses the components she wants installed, the
> > installer generates a list of packages it needs, then checks which of
> > these packages already exist in its directory (or the directory it was
> > started from), fetches the remaining packages requested and installs the
> > suite.
> >
> > This way e.g. the magazine could put the installer and any relevant
> > language packs in its CD, and a large development could do just the
> > same. By the way, I remember some really old versions of Internet
> > Explorer were distributed this way (not sure about the later ones). I
> > think having an installer like this could satisfy almost every case. The
> > only potential downside to this that I see is that space usage on
> > mirrors could probably grow a bit, if LibO would decide to provide full
> > bundles as an alternative to this option. But OTOH, this could also be
> > avoided by adding an option in the installer to only download files for
> > off-line installation (or by distributing those full bundles on a
> > smaller amount of mirrors). In short, there are lots of options here.
> > All we need is someone to volunteer to implement this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rimas
> I that would be an excellent way to do it.
> I remember (back when I was still using Microsoft) that there were a
> few packages built more or less like that, which I found really
> convenient.
> (I would download everything, so as to be able to install/uninstall
> modules at will.)
> I don't think that this would make a lot of difference for the
> mirrors.  (It should reduce download volume for Ms-windows versions.)
> It certainly would be a lot more convenient for users.
> But as you say, it awaits volonteer(s) to do it.
I very much agree with the views expressed in favour of a modular installer.
When I try to think at it, from the simple user's point of view, it
sounds increasingly appealing!
Another question I would like to throw on the table (and I do apoologize
if it is a little "off the mark"), is the following:

I remember there used to be an OOo special version for kids, which imho
proved quite popular in School classes and kindergardtens.
Is there any chance that we, as LibO, could promote something simlar,
which could be named LiboKids???
Any plans perhaps to look at this, in the foreseeable future??
As I am in touch with the pre-school environement and the first
elementary classes, I would really love to see some sort of this being
promoted!

Thanks to all of you

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+help@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/l10n/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted