I agree, I have stopped using Hardy with this bug. It's taken too long to
fix. It's back to Win XT.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:23 AM, oschwa2s <email address hidden>
wrote:
> Starting /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin directly works for me
> too, tank you!
>
> A little (constructive) criticism at this point:
> Updates which corrupt Ubuntu's basic packages (like Open Office) should
> never make it from "hardy-proposed" to "hardy-updates". I believe this bug
> is unnecessary and annoying because it is very obvious and it occurred on
> every up-to-date AMD64 Hardy so far. It even may scare new users back to
> Windows. It's simply not acceptable for productive machines that Office
> won't work for a week or so. I always believed (or hoped) that Canonical had
> a better quality assurance...
>
> --
> hardy, locking assertion failure, xorg/libsdl
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/185311
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug.
>
I agree, I have stopped using Hardy with this bug. It's taken too long to
fix. It's back to Win XT.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:23 AM, oschwa2s <email address hidden>
wrote:
> Starting /usr/lib/ openoffice/ program/ soffice. bin directly works for me /bugs.launchpad .net/bugs/ 185311
> too, tank you!
>
> A little (constructive) criticism at this point:
> Updates which corrupt Ubuntu's basic packages (like Open Office) should
> never make it from "hardy-proposed" to "hardy-updates". I believe this bug
> is unnecessary and annoying because it is very obvious and it occurred on
> every up-to-date AMD64 Hardy so far. It even may scare new users back to
> Windows. It's simply not acceptable for productive machines that Office
> won't work for a week or so. I always believed (or hoped) that Canonical had
> a better quality assurance...
>
> --
> hardy, locking assertion failure, xorg/libsdl
> https:/
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug.
>
--
Karl R. Zawoy
386-344-1226