From: dorayme on
Mostly I don't download the many patches that Neo-Office have, so many!

I notice no disadvantage because I use the program in so limited a way
and it is all moot by the time a new version comes out. What surprises
me is the size of most of the patches, they all seem so enormous, over
10MB, makes me wonder if they could be much smaller but are not because
it would be a lot more trouble to so make them (which is fair enough for
free program, I am not complaining).

--
dorayme
From: Mike Rosenberg on
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Mostly I don't download the many patches that Neo-Office have, so many!
>
> I notice no disadvantage because I use the program in so limited a way
> and it is all moot by the time a new version comes out. What surprises
> me is the size of most of the patches, they all seem so enormous, over
> 10MB, makes me wonder if they could be much smaller but are not because
> it would be a lot more trouble to so make them (which is fair enough for
> free program, I am not complaining).

So, to summarize: You don't need no stinkin' patches!

--
I kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude
From: dorayme on
In article <1ij05sh.hs27r16rfnxyN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Mostly I don't download the many patches that Neo-Office have, so many!
> >
> > I notice no disadvantage because I use the program in so limited a way
> > and it is all moot by the time a new version comes out. What surprises
> > me is the size of most of the patches, they all seem so enormous, over
> > 10MB, makes me wonder if they could be much smaller but are not because
> > it would be a lot more trouble to so make them (which is fair enough for
> > free program, I am not complaining).
>
> So, to summarize: You don't need no stinkin' patches!

Well, maybe <g> It does the job for me and I would not be surprised if
the very first version that ever came out (with all its faults) would
have done me as well. All I use it for is to open my client word
processed texts and spreadsheets to grab the text and get out as quick
as possible. (I dislike staying in there or actually using it, it being
very clunky on my machine... but this is another topic)

--
dorayme
From: Fred Moore on
In article
<doraymeRidThis-35B06A.13143324062008(a)news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <1ij05sh.hs27r16rfnxyN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Mostly I don't download the many patches that Neo-Office have, so many!
> > >
> > > I notice no disadvantage because I use the program in so limited a way
> > > and it is all moot by the time a new version comes out. What surprises
> > > me is the size of most of the patches, they all seem so enormous, over
> > > 10MB, makes me wonder if they could be much smaller but are not because
> > > it would be a lot more trouble to so make them (which is fair enough for
> > > free program, I am not complaining).
> >
> > So, to summarize: You don't need no stinkin' patches!
>
> Well, maybe <g> It does the job for me and I would not be surprised if
> the very first version that ever came out (with all its faults) would
> have done me as well. All I use it for is to open my client word
> processed texts and spreadsheets to grab the text and get out as quick
> as possible. (I dislike staying in there or actually using it, it being
> very clunky on my machine... but this is another topic)

Every patch fixes some bugs. Whether those bugs affect you is another
issue. Lately the patches have included various new features, mostly in
the plugin category, such as image acquisition. They are as large as
they are because each patch is cumulative, i.e. including _all_ upgrades
and bug fixes up to the point the patch was issued (a 'combo' updater).
This saves the open source development team a lot of time because they
don't have to produce 2 patches, incremental and cumulative, and
additionally don't have to sort out which parts of which bits of code go
into the incremental patch. Anyone who has done that sort of sifting can
tell you it can be very time consuming.

When I update OS X, I _always_ use the combo updater, so NeoO's approach
fits in with my way of doing things. But then I'm on broadband so the
downloads don't take too long.

Hope this helps.

--Fred
From: dorayme on
In article <fmoore-F16332.11515224062008(a)nntp.aioe.org>,
Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote:

> They are as large as
> they are because each patch is cumulative, i.e. including _all_ upgrades
> and bug fixes up to the point the patch was issued (a 'combo' updater).
> This saves the open source development team a lot of time because they
> don't have to produce 2 patches, incremental and cumulative, and
> additionally don't have to sort out which parts of which bits of code go
> into the incremental patch. Anyone who has done that sort of sifting can
> tell you it can be very time consuming.
>
> When I update OS X, I _always_ use the combo updater, so NeoO's approach
> fits in with my way of doing things. But then I'm on broadband so the
> downloads don't take too long.
>
> Hope this helps.

It does. Thank you for bringing these factors to my attention. I was
curious.

--
dorayme