Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What happens to Open Office when upgrading to U_12.04.1?

Tags:
Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
October 4, 2012 3:36:41 AM

Gents:

Currently running U_10.04 LTS. Should I upgrade to U_12.04.1 thru the Synaptic option, what happens to my current Open Office installation and data? Is it automatically removed?

More about : open office upgrading

October 4, 2012 10:37:19 AM

I would assume so (it won't touch your documents though). The openoffice.org meta-package in Ubuntu 12.04 is just a transitional package. When you upgrade to the version in the 12.04 repository it will most likely remove the existing openoffice.org packages and install their libreoffice counterparts instead. If you want to avoid this and use Apache OpenOffice instead, you'll need to remove your existing openoffice.org packages and install the appropriate package from http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html. After doing this you will no longer get automatic updates though.

On a side note: Make sure that you back up your important data before performing the upgrade. Jumping 4 Ubuntu versions using the package manager might not work as smoothly as you'd like and you may end up needing to do a clean install. A clean install will probably be infinitely faster as well.
m
0
l
October 4, 2012 2:07:54 PM

Thanks for the quick, clear answer. I gather no data will be (ideally) lost. It's the devils.bargain for me. Ubuntu 10.04LTS runs my main home production box ... that holds all academic, creative, technical and personal functions. It **cannot** fail or misfunction! I "back up" only the most critical elements either to CD-rom, my legacy home box (Ubunta also) or my office computer.

Last two system transitions ( U_6.06 & 8.08) I have built out new HW kit and installed the updated OS on them first, testing stability, function and my own (VERY MODEST) admin skills. After a year or so (slow learner) the "new" box becomes the main system. However -- this cycle I have not found good reason for new kit --- my quad BE965 never gets pushed to 50% so I have a hard time justifying ~$1-K new HW for the new system-software install.

So ... I'm in a sort of self-imposed trap requiring 100% 24/7/365 performance from my main (much appreciated ) Ubuntu production box, while hardware ages & the software evolves out from under me. I bet I am not the only casual Linux lusr in this situation.

Using Ubuntu as 95% of my computer resource ( some lab datalogger HW only works easily in Windows) I am aware of its less-than-perfect behavior, but for all I do the 10.04 version is both stable, well known & **GOOD ENOUGH**. I am loath to make any change whatsoever.


randomizer said:
I would assume so (it won't touch your documents though). The openoffice.org meta-package in Ubuntu 12.04 is just a transitional package. When you upgrade to the version in the 12.04 repository it will most likely remove the existing openoffice.org packages and install their libreoffice counterparts instead. If you want to avoid this and use Apache OpenOffice instead, you'll need to remove your existing openoffice.org packages and install the appropriate package from http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html. After doing this you will no longer get automatic updates though.

On a side note: Make sure that you back up your important data before performing the upgrade. Jumping 4 Ubuntu versions using the package manager might not work as smoothly as you'd like and you may end up needing to do a clean install. A clean install will probably be infinitely faster as well.

m
0
l
Related resources
October 4, 2012 9:12:44 PM

well if it works for you, and you don't need/want the new features then you have no reason to upgrade...

that being said, if you do want to upgrade... a clean install will be less of a headache.
m
0
l
October 4, 2012 9:52:52 PM

My feelings exactly. Yet ... come April 2013 U_10.03LTS looses all support and the **security** updates stop. Will it be like unsupported WinXP that just keeps-on-working for me with a new OPERA browser and frisky 2003 firewall ... or rather how long until basic UBUNTU function degrades? How is the entire Ubuntu/Debian **system** designed at its core --- to run unsupported fore-ever like a faithful CITYANDTHESTARS robot or a BLADERUNNER live-fast/die-fast?

If I **had** a new HW build for experimentation I'd be temped to take 6-months, strap-on a bronze helmet and see if I could configure & maintain a new Debian system. If you can survive it, a Spartan mindset speaks well of your companions.


skittle said:
well if it works for you, and you don't need/want the new features then you have no reason to upgrade...

that being said, if you do want to upgrade... a clean install will be less of a headache.

m
0
l
October 4, 2012 9:54:59 PM

Ubuntu 12.04 uses quite a bit of a different interface to 10.04, so make sure you test out the Live CD (if you haven't already) before you upgrade to it. You don't sound like the sort of person who enjoys switching out desktop environments every other day ;) 

There are never any guarantees that your system won't fail after an upgrade. Lots of things change in 2 years especially in the kernel and some drivers. These changes may not work so well with your system. Furthermore, upgrading via the package manager introduces a greater chance of complications than simply doing a clean install. In any case, test the Live CD on your main system before upgrading, not just an older system. If the Live CD works fine then you can be fairly confident that (at the very least) a clean install will work fine as well.
m
0
l
October 4, 2012 11:15:34 PM

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosin...

debian stable and ubuntu LTS are aimed at installations where bleeding edge software is not a priority, but maximum uptime is the main focus.

In addition, your current 10.04 will continue to work normally, but as you have noted, will no longer receive security updates. Its up to you to choose what is more important, dealing with a new system or lack of security updates.
m
0
l
October 5, 2012 2:32:15 AM

Appreciate the words of caution by you and R-izer. Canonical has proven less-than the **ROCK** of computing stability I had come to expect. I hope by next April pressing computer.dependent tasks will be completed and new HW in place ... allowing me to make a prudent, low-risk system conversion.

Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis.


skittle said:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosin...

debian stable and ubuntu LTS are aimed at installations where bleeding edge software is not a priority, but maximum uptime is the main focus.

In addition, your current 10.04 will continue to work normally, but as you have noted, will no longer receive security updates. Its up to you to choose what is more important, dealing with a new system or lack of security updates.

m
0
l
October 5, 2012 3:18:10 AM

It's less of a Canonical issue and more of a technical one. A full system upgrade that spans 4 OS releases is just much more complicated and therefore more prone to problems than wiping the disk and copying packages from the Live CD which are already at the latest version or close to it (ie. a fresh install). It may work perfectly fine (albeit slow), but it also may not work fine. The risk is going to be present whether you upgrade now or in 2013. A fresh install is always going to be safer because it simply doesn't have as many steps to get from point A to point B. In both cases you should still test the Live CD to make sure that once you get to point B that you don't have hardware compatibility issues and lots of downtime.
m
0
l
October 7, 2012 4:24:04 AM

You could always buy a new hard disk, clone your existing OS onto it and upgrade or do a fresh installation of Debian stable/Ubuntu 12.04.1/etc.. I would avoid wiping your working state OS at all costs. Perhaps there is a config file or some settings that would take hours to rebuild. Plus, it's nice to have something that's working when you're setting up the new system.
m
0
l
October 8, 2012 3:24:09 AM

Yes Ms AMDfg:

You understand my aversion to risk and desire for a robust solution!

Jumping into the dark is not my style. I didn't do a good job of explaining how I use a new hardware build to cover my software upgrade. The new OS goes on the new hardware. Over the course of 6-mo I will migrate all my tricky old HW function ( like scanner) from old to new system. All the data ... work and personal ... gets migrated from old to new system also. Should any step in the migration fail I STOP DEAD until the issue is resolved. I always have my legacy system to support the function.

Thus at the time I finally switch-over my legacy system to the new OS version , I actually have two (2) nearly identical copies of my hardware-support and data framework. At that point I have transitioned to the new hardware for my daily production work and can afford the risk of legacy system failure when I attempt to upgrade the OS.

What's different right now is I have not bought that new hardware (the BE 965 is toodammgood) to begin the roll-forward process. Now **IS** a good time to buy, and in another thread several posters validated my suggestion for an Intel 1240.v2/AsRockZ77/560ti system. Mongrel software appears likely. Don't think I have the guts for straight-shot Debian.


amdfangirl said:
You could always buy a new hard disk, clone your existing OS onto it and upgrade or do a fresh installation of Debian stable/Ubuntu 12.04.1/etc.. I would avoid wiping your working state OS at all costs. Perhaps there is a config file or some settings that would take hours to rebuild. Plus, it's nice to have something that's working when you're setting up the new system.

m
0
l
October 8, 2012 1:28:35 PM

MS AMDfg:

Thanks for the reference to a thoughtful, well written "tek history" article. It makes me think that before Zambezi, AMD faltered by not bringing out a **final** X-series CPU ... something a step beyond the 980 .... a six-core 6-FPU 4.0-Ghz beast with lots of on-die cache and copper-crusted Xigmatic cooler.


amdfangirl said:
If your computer is fine, I see no reason to upgrade.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/134760-pc-obsolesc...

Very well written article. Do consider whether you need an upgrade before you do. A simple hard disk can supplant the need for a new system (an SSD perhaps).

m
0
l
October 8, 2012 3:42:08 PM

My point is that if you don't need an upgrade, don't buy one.

Quote:
In 1996, top-end systems were built around Intel’s Pentium 166 with a 512K off-die L2 cache, 16-32MB of EDO RAM, video cards with 2MB of VRAM, and 5400 RPM HDDs limited to ATA-33. Four years later, 1GHz CPUs with full-speed on-die cache, 128MB of PC-100 SDRAM, 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HDDs, and 16-32 MB of video RAM were selling for under $3000.


Quote:
Now, compare an early Core i7 system (Nehalem) against what’s shipping today (Ivy Bridge). Clock speeds are up a bit, and there are cheaper/lower-end options available, but the Core i7-920 that launched at 2.67GHz with four cores and eight threads is still absolutely capable of powering the latest games and applications.


Both randomizer and I are happy with our Core i7 (Nehalem; 2008) and Phenom II X2 (Deneb; 2009) computers respectively. The options I would be considering now are between whether or not an upgrade is really a necessity.
m
0
l
!