New to Linux -installing software/ LibreOffice

[Yayap7]

Hey there, so I'm new to Linux.  Been on Mac OS, Windows, and now I just installed Linux Mint Cinnamon.  So far so good.  Updated the main software, the linux kernel..

But with Mint it came with an old version of LibreOfice.  So I uninstalled that and downloaded the 6.2.03 package from the website. But I am a bit unsure how to install the full suite at one time.  I know installing software in the terminal is usually the way to go but since the version in the software manager is only 1.6, I'm not sure going through the terminal will update it to 6.2

 

Help!  What's the best route here?   

Also if I do install it manually with the DGebi Package Installer, do I need to go through each package -core, images, ooofonts, ure..etc?

 

Thanks!

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

Just now, Yayap7 said:

but since the version in the software manager is only 1.6

it isn't. install it from the software manager again, then open it and go to help - about (or something, i'm on macOS at the moment so i don't know exactly) and that will tell you the real version.

[Yayap7]

6 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

it isn't. install it from the software manager again, then open it and go to help - about (or something, i'm on macOS at the moment so i don't know exactly) and that will tell you the real version.

Just installed it from the software manager and it's definitely an older version.  It says 6.0.7.3.  Can I run an update for it though the terminal?

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

13 minutes ago, Yayap7 said:

Just installed it from the software manager and it's definitely an older version.  It says 6.0.7.3.  Can I run an update for it though the terminal?

Mint has a software updater. look for it.

[Sauron]

Have you read the installation instructions?

[kendoka]

It is possible that package manager used by your system just doesn't have newer version, uninstall the old one and install the new one that you downloaded.

[Guest]

.Deb are available in the LibreOffice website, note that there are two versions, the LibreOffice fresh and still, the fresh is the most updated and unstable one but check your package manager distro repository first

[captain_aggravated]

Welcome to Linux MInt, you're going to be using old versions of packages.

 

Edit:  Let me expand on that so it comes off less glib and actually say something helpful.  Debian-based distros (such as Ubuntu and therefore Mint) are typically on a Long Term Support release schedule.  The idea there is, your system--and the software repositories for that system--are a snapshot in time.  Everything at that point in history (theoretically) worked together, so we'll keep everything at its launch version.  That way, LibreOffice or whoever can't push an update that breaks your system or your workflow.  It does mean that you might end up running a whole system full of software that is 5 years out of date, but it'll run just like it did the day you installed it.  The updates you get are security and bugfixes, seldom if ever feature updates.

Rolling release distros like Manjaro are the ones that keep you constantly up to date, at the risk of breaking a workflow.  Probably stick with an LTS release until you're used to the Linux swing of things.

 

You might want to check out Flatpak.  You get self-contained binaries that function independent of distro.  It's probably the easiest and most user friendly way to get up-to-date packages on an LTS system.

Edited February 11, 2019 by captain_aggravated

[uzivkovic997]

Try to delete old version and install that one you have downloaded.
Open Terminal and navigate to directory where the file is downloaded.
Let's assume that file is in Downloads directory.
Type next:

cd Downloads

ls

sudo dpkg -i name of file

[captain_aggravated]

5 hours ago, uzivkovic997 said:

Try to delete old version and install that one you have downloaded.
Open Terminal and navigate to directory where the file is downloaded.
Let's assume that file is in Downloads directory.
Type next:

cd Downloads

ls

sudo dpkg -i name of file

I just recently did this same thing, downloaded the new version from LibreOffice's website. It gives you over a dozen individual .deb files.  So I'd change that last line to

 

sudo dpkg -i *.deb

 

to install all of them at once.

[wasab]

Use the .deb(Debian based distro version of Microsoft .exe installer)

 

Ubuntu needs to test their softwares before including them in their repos which made some softwares quite outdated. You do not need the command line but it is the easiest way to install and remove something. Telling you terminal commands is much easier and less error prone than telling you to click and this and that as well. You can just copy and paste if you prefer.

[jpenguin]

PPA's are prefered over downloading *.debs from the developers website

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas

or use a flatpak

https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.libreoffice.LibreOffice

or snap

https://snapcraft.io/libreoffice

[captain_aggravated]

Yeah, the average Linux user is expected to maintain about 15 different and incompatible ways of installing, removing and maintaining software on his computer.

• The standard app manager.  apt, pacman, yum, whatever.  This where the parts of the OS itself will come from, kernels, updates to the UI, etc.
• The standard app manager's wrong side of the tracks.  PPAs, the AUR, etc.  Sure, you can find some good and useful stuff here, among the used syringes and smallpox blankets.
• A different distro's package manager.  I have on occasion needed to use a .rpm on a .deb based machine, enter Alien.
• Module managers for various programming languages.  Gem, for example.  Python has easy-install and pip.  These are meant to be repositories for libraries, but that doesn't stop the neckbeards from distributing end-user software this way.
• Flatpak and Snap.  I vote the project directors for these two utterly redundant projects be put in the Thunderdome, then we all use the survivor's software.  I'd root for Flatpak because it's not the product of that weird "We're going to make our own EVERYTHING" phase Canonical went through.
• Appimage.  You know what I miss about Windows?  Going out to a website and manually downloading binary blobs.  If only Linux had more viruses, then it'd truly feel like old times.
• install scripts.  These are usually the "Linux version" of proprietary software that just can't bring itself to exist in a repo.  A shell script dumps a bunch of shit in /opt.  Yay manual updates!
• Source code.  My main issue with compiling from source is that and end user has basically no hope of fixing it if it goes wrong.  Errors are cryptic or "unspecified."  If there's a missing library, I don't expect most end users to know how to fix it.  This really, seriously needs to be there for devs, but shouldn't be how software is published.  I might make an exception for Gentoo's Portage, I haven't ever run Gentoo so I haven't seen it in action.
• Tarball full of python scripts.  Nothing screams "one guy who squints and blinks a lot did this in his spare time" than a tarball full of python scripts.
• Steam.  At least we don't have to worry about uPlay or Origin.

This is only getting worse, and it's one of the many reasons not to use Linux.  When you're only using the standard package manager, most of the software on your machine can be installed, maintained, extended, upgraded or uninstalled using the same tool, and you can automatically or quickly ensure that your whole system is up to date in a single place.  Not anymore.  None of the above methods of installing software are compatible with each other, so you'd have to run their own separate updater programs, if one exists at all.

 

All of them introduce inconsistencies and inelegances.  For example, installing LibreOffice from anywhere but the standard repos or PPAs changes the terminal command to something other than "lowriter" or "localc".  As I use the --covert-to method a lot, this is inconvenient as hell.

[wasab]

1 hour ago, captain_aggravated said:

- snip -

Jesus. You are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. Op is on mint so general rule is always this. 

 

Distro package manager and repo is your FIRST default go to. Only go to SECOND if the repo doesn't have what the user is looking for or the version it has do not suit the user's needs. 

 

PPA is the SECOND default go to. Only go to THIRD if this source does not contain what user is looking for or meet the user's needs. 

 

THIRD is a tie between appimage and the .Deb installer file. Only go to FOURTH if the .Deb does not exist or incompatible with the user's system. 

 

FOUTH is get it from git and then do the 1990s  sudo make and sudo make install. Because Linux softwares are largely open source, pretty sure there exists a repo somewhere on GitHub with all the raw source code and .configure file that allows convienient compilation from source. 

 

FIFTH are scripts which usually ships with an entire executable binary and neccessary dependencies all in one giant folder. (Looking at you Android studio and QT creator). Most modern day install scripts no longer dump shits into /opt anymore and instead prompt user to pick a directory somewhere in user's home where it unloads all the stuff. A lot of times, it doesn't even bother creating a launcher or adding the executable to the path environment  and just let user's figure that stuff out so it is pretty much just one giant portable software in a folder.

 

[captain_aggravated]

10 minutes ago, wasab said:

Jesus. You are making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

That's kinda my point.  I would like it to be simpler, but the trend is the other way.

In practice, I'll largely agree with your order of operations there in that that's how it *should* work.  Devs are increasingly disagreeing, so desktop Linux is getting messier to administer by the second.

 

I'll drive it back to my original point a week ago:  If you're not happy with how old the packages in your distros repositories are, you might be happier on a less conservative distro than Debian, Ubuntu or Mint.

[jpenguin]

57 minutes ago, wasab said:

...

Yep, I find most of my software in mydistros repo/rpm fusion, most other thing in copr (kinda like ppas), only compile prerelease/beta software, wish flatpak/snap would merge.  Packages on linux are kinda complex

[Sauron]

On 2/15/2019 at 11:08 PM, captain_aggravated said:

Yeah, the average Linux user is expected to maintain about 15 different and incompatible ways of installing, removing and maintaining software on his computer.

• The standard app manager.  apt, pacman, yum, whatever.  This where the parts of the OS itself will come from, kernels, updates to the UI, etc.
• The standard app manager's wrong side of the tracks.  PPAs, the AUR, etc.  Sure, you can find some good and useful stuff here, among the used syringes and smallpox blankets.
• A different distro's package manager.  I have on occasion needed to use a .rpm on a .deb based machine, enter Alien.
• Module managers for various programming languages.  Gem, for example.  Python has easy-install and pip.  These are meant to be repositories for libraries, but that doesn't stop the neckbeards from distributing end-user software this way.
• Flatpak and Snap.  I vote the project directors for these two utterly redundant projects be put in the Thunderdome, then we all use the survivor's software.  I'd root for Flatpak because it's not the product of that weird "We're going to make our own EVERYTHING" phase Canonical went through.
• Appimage.  You know what I miss about Windows?  Going out to a website and manually downloading binary blobs.  If only Linux had more viruses, then it'd truly feel like old times.
• install scripts.  These are usually the "Linux version" of proprietary software that just can't bring itself to exist in a repo.  A shell script dumps a bunch of shit in /opt.  Yay manual updates!
• Source code.  My main issue with compiling from source is that and end user has basically no hope of fixing it if it goes wrong.  Errors are cryptic or "unspecified."  If there's a missing library, I don't expect most end users to know how to fix it.  This really, seriously needs to be there for devs, but shouldn't be how software is published.  I might make an exception for Gentoo's Portage, I haven't ever run Gentoo so I haven't seen it in action.
• Tarball full of python scripts.  Nothing screams "one guy who squints and blinks a lot did this in his spare time" than a tarball full of python scripts.
• Steam.  At least we don't have to worry about uPlay or Origin.

Arch Linux solves almost every problem on this list, the one exception being steam which is the same as on Windows. I'd also argue the "average user" will be fine with what's available in Ubuntu's or Mint's main repositories, this is just a situation where the user would have preferred slightly newer software.