Karmic 9.10 new kernel BAD!

[NoOp]

On 12/03/2009 07:01 PM, Res wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Christopher Chan wrote:
> 
>>
>> You have missed the point. I specifically pointed to 'consumer' packages
>> and not 'provider' packages such as the kernel, glibc or other system
>> libraries. pidgin/openoffice do not have other packages dependent on
>> them for example. The different would be that there is a known set of
> 
> Given that ubuntu, like fedora, remove some parts of openoffice because 
> it doesnt fit in with their views, the first thing I do is remove it, and 
> use the deb from openoffice.org, easy upgrades via dpkg, and you get the 
> complete openoffice as well as the latest. But I conceed thats fine for 
> people like us who know what we're doing, but for many avg joe's they'd 
> have no idea you could even do it, letalone how to do it.

This is the second time that I've seen someone post something like this
in the past week or so. Can you specifically point out _which parts_
Ubuntu removes from OOo (to fit in with their views or otherwise)?

About the _only_ thing I can think of with any importance is perhaps an
issue with the addressbook filters:
<https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openoffice.org/+bug/93546>
[note who filed that bug report]

I test standard OOo (including dev and RC's), (U)OOo, go-oo/novell OOo
(upon which (U)OOo is built) many times per week, and I just can't seem
to find these "parts" that are missing. In fact quite the opposite;
(U)OOo uses gstreamer for sound and video... perhaps you'd like to
explain how others using standard OOo install jmf to get basic
minimalistic sound and video working in Impress etc?

$ locate versionrc
/opt/ooo-dev/basis3.2/program/versionrc
/opt/ooo-dev/ure/bin/versionrc
/opt/ooo-dev3/program/versionrc
/opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1/program/versionrc
/opt/openoffice.org/ure/bin/versionrc
/opt/openoffice.org3/program/versionrc
/usr/lib/openoffice/basis3.1/program/versionrc
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/versionrc
/usr/lib/ure/bin/versionrc

What I do agree with is that the lack of upgrading (U)OOo (plus
mozilla/Fx/SM/Tb) to current stable versions is just plain silly. LTS
doesn't mean that a user should have to stay in the stone age, nor
should they suffer the obvious _serious_ security issues of running
outdated applications. OOo 2.x, Fx 2.x, SeaMonkey 1.x, Java version x,
etc., etc., *all* have security issues. Supposedly the LTS versions
address this; but a simple look at patches applied to just those
applications alone indicate otherwise.