LibreOffice 7.3 Released With Better Interoperability For Microsoft Office Files

[phoronix]

Phoronix: LibreOffice 7.3 Released With Better Interoperability For Microsoft Office Files

The Document Foundation has released LibreOffice 7.3 as the newest half-year update to this leading open-source, cross-platform office suite...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LibreOffice-7.3

[TNZfr]

Hi
For your info, I made a script allowing download & install from libreoffice.org servers.
It deals with DEB and RPM.
It's available over there : https://github.com/TNZfr/lbof

[birdie]

Hi
For your info, I made a script allowing download & install from libreoffice.org servers.
It deals with DEB and RPM.
It's available over there : https://github.com/TNZfr/lbof

This is not how you use ... bash. Please.

[elatllat]

Add a https://www.shellcheck.net/ plugin to your editor of choice.

[Nth_man]

Add a https://www.shellcheck.net/ plugin to your editor of choice.

If someone does not know how to do that, at least executing `shellcheck SCRIPT.sh` is much better than nothing.

[TNZfr]

This is not how you use ... bash. Please.

I'm afraid to not understand.
But, if you talk about quoting in tests in bash ... for your information, I don't quote in bash test when I'm sure variables exist and doesn't have a null value.

I write scripts since many years in ksh, bash .. whatever and, generally, with the constraint to write an usable uniq script for a RedHat, Solaris Sparc and AIX systems. So, when I don't use quote in tests, there's a reason and no risks.
If you consider that spellcheck is the best way write scripts or sources, this means that you don't know programming and source maintenance. What you say is the same I can hear from powerpoint IT architects ... they have all the solutions and best practices, but they never use them.

If you consider i'm wrong, fork and do better. We'll see ...

[birdie]

I'm afraid to not understand.
But, if you talk about quoting in tests in bash ... for your information, I don't quote in bash test when I'm sure variables exist and doesn't have a null value.

I write scripts since many years in ksh, bash .. whatever and, generally, with the constraint to write an usable uniq script for a RedHat, Solaris Sparc and AIX systems. So, when I don't use quote in tests, there's a reason and no risks.
If you consider that spellcheck is the best way write scripts or sources, this means that you don't know programming and source maintenance. What you say is the same I can hear from powerpoint IT architects ... they have all the solutions and best practices, but they never use them.

If you consider i'm wrong, fork and do better. We'll see ...

Your script deals with user input and web resources - you may never know what the user may type and what the web may return. If that's the script for you personally, it's OK. I'd never offer something like that for other people. Your experience is worth nothing if you fail to understand the basic principles of secure programming. It doesn't take much to double quote all the variables and e.g. use for i in "$@" instead of for i in $* which may blow spectacularly right in your face. If I were an employer, my employees wouldn't boast about such code. They would be warned, reprimanded and then fired if they continued to play with fire by utilizing unsafe programming practices. The two other people in this discussion weren't happy as well, which could probably indicate that your stance is not exactly standard or normal.

I'm not going to fork anything, I will simply not touch your code, not to mention you have function names in French which is just mauvais ton. I've posted lots of Bash scripts on the internet and never ever I allowed myself such liberty if not for very early scripts when I didn't know much about shell programming.

[TNZfr]

Your script deals with user input and web resources - you may never know what the user may type and what the web may return. If that's the script for you personally, it's OK. I'd never offer something like that for other people. Your experience is worth nothing if you fail to understand the basic principles of secure programming. It doesn't take much to double quote all the variables and e.g. use for i in "$@" instead of for i in $* which may blow spectacularly right in your face. If I were an employer, my employees wouldn't boast about such code. They would be warned, reprimanded and then fired if they continued to play with fire by utilizing unsafe programming practices. The two other people in this discussion weren't happy as well, which could probably indicate that your stance is not exactly standard or normal.

I'm not going to fork anything, I will simply not touch your code, not to mention you have function names in French which is just mauvais ton. I've posted lots of Bash scripts on the internet and never ever I allowed myself such liberty if not for very early scripts when I didn't know much about shell programming.

Do as you wish, I give a working script not a state of art of whatever standard satisfaying dogmatic non programming guys who spend their time telling others how to do without doing themselves.

[cytomax55]

And here I am hoping some interesting info about 7.3 would be discussed

[birdie]

Do as you wish, I give a working script not a state of art of whatever standard satisfaying dogmatic non programming guys who spend their time telling others how to do without doing themselves.

Will you also refer to civil engineering [theory] as "dogmatic"? Would you want to build something which will kill people? It's not about dogmas, it's about safety, reliability and being fault-tolerant. If you hate those words, fine. I'd be a little bit more humble though.