![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Hi,
I was using 4.0.2 and then I downloaded 4.0.3 but 4.0.3 is not as stable as
4.0.2. So, now I am downloading 4.0.4.
I am more interested in stable and feature rich (optional) software rather
than frequently released software.
Stablility is very important because a non-stable software / software
having many bugs results in loss of time and frustartion.
Amit
Hi 
That 3rd digit is roughly the equivalent of "Service pack". So usually the higher it is the more stable it is. Of course even just bug-patches and fixes can sometimes introduce unexpected problems that might not get caught by QA.
The best answer, imo, is to keep a very stable version that you are happy enough with on all the machines you look after especially ones that have limited access or that you can't reach easily. Then on 1 machine find some way of being able to test-drive an occasional beta-test versions before it gets released. Preferably do about 1 per branch. The problem is that things you might care about deeply might not even be getting used by other people at all. So it's only you that might notice. So if you didn't test-drive then the problem might never be found. Also it's better to do your testing on a beta release rather than a full release because it's during the early beta stage that the most devs are the most focussed on the 1 single version and trying to solve the most problems quickly. Also it's when the fewest other people are making bug-reports.
There are various ways you could make sure you have access to 1 version for use for work that has a dead-line and another version that you can just use to try things out and make sure it all works.
Regards from
Tom
Unfortunately, the "3rd digit rule" doesn't work as goog as expected...
I use report builder in base, 4.0.3.3 version. Download 4.0.4 and
report builder no more works (crash in opening).
thanks anyway for developers work, I remember this is a free sw, at the
end....
Federico Quadri
Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk> ha scritto:
I currently am running 4.0.4 on all my systems - Ubuntu and Windows.
Currently, in the pas month, versions 3.6.7 and 4.1.0 have come out.
3.6.7 is the end-of-line release for that line and it very stable, but does not have some of the features of the 4.0.x line.
4.1.0 is the first of that line and has some features that 4.0.4 does not. These include better MS XML filters to read/write the file formats like .docx and the others with "x" in their name.
If you follow the information in the release plan image [link] then you may be happy.
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LibOReleaseLifecycle.png
For some people, they wait till the release ends with .4 or .5.
i.e. go from the 4.0.x line when you reach 4.0.4 or 4.0.5
Then go to the 4.1.x line when 4.1.4 or 4.1.5 comes out.
4.0.4 is out now and 4.0.5 comes out in about 2 weeks.
3.6.7 is also out now, but I would stick with 4.0.4 and its newer versions, for now.
Hi
I think with Base it's better to stay with older branches. The 3.6.7 might be better. if the 4.0.3 works for you then stick with that.
Sadly there are still not many devs working on Base. It's not flashy enough!
Regards from
Tom
Hi Tom,
I have been programming since 1987. I have all my degrees in computer
science/networking. I have worked for companies like Cisco systems, Juniper
networks and have turned down offers from companies like Google and
Microsoft for one reason or other.
This whole software industry is going in the wrong direction. Actually, by
now we should have been done by all the software (all the necessary
software developed and installed and used, no bugs, etc.
We need to beat Microsoft because we do not want to pay for Office suite.
The best way of doing this is to release stable versions only and this can
be done by increasing the QA cycle period.
I do not release buggy software unless it has been approved by management.
And I have not released any software that's gonna hurt the customer even if
I have to get into discussions with managers, directors, etc.
This whole idea of releasing software frequently is a scam, because work
doesn't get done properly in a small time window. No one gets any time for
innovation and everyone is just interested in the release. And in the end,
the software dies down because the frequent release does not fix things
properly and introduces new bugs and over time all these quickfixes kill
the product.
THERE IS NO DEMAND FROM CUSTOMERS FOR FREQUENT RELEASES. THE DEMAND IS FROM
PEOPLE WHO ARE SOFTWARE ANALYSTS AND THEY WANT SOMETHING TO DO AND HENCE
THEY WANT FREQUENT RELEASES. IT IS A BIG SCAM.
I use around 5-6 external softwares and if everyone is releasing something
every month then it becomes a headache to me.
RELEASING ONLY TWICE A YEAR IS VERY FOOD.
THE BIGGEST RISK OF RELEASING FREQUENTLY IS THAT ORIGINAL PROBLEMS ARE NOT
SOLVED PROPERLY AND QUICKFIXES MAKE MANAGING THE SOFTWARE COMPLICATED AND
IN THE END THE DEVELOPERS GIVE UP AND THE PRODUCT IS SHELVED.
AND ALL THIS HAPPENS WITH PAID SOFTWARE TOO.
Amit
Hi Amit,
While your CV is impressive, this is still just your opinion. For open
source software, it seems that this isn't true. "Release early and
release often" is a mantra that is oft repeated; it seems that several
open source projects have found this to be the most effective way of
keeping interest from dying down.
Actually, by now we should have been done by all the software
Hardly likely, given the speed and amount of innovation occuring in
software, hardware and OSes.
We need to beat Microsoft because we do not want to pay for Office
suite.
Well, this is hardly the reason the open source community are striving
for alternatives. It may be the main reason for some people (and I'll
admit I am one of them. I couldn't afford to stay in business if I had
to pay Microsoft's prices for every little piece of software I used),
but there are other equally (some would say more) important reasons.
Like competition promotes innovation, and standards are a good thing.
The best way of doing this is to release stable versions only
As stated above, I don't think this is true. Stable versions *are*
released, if people wish to stick to them, but newer versions are also
released so that people can adopt them early if they wish for newer
features. This does mean people are implicitly accepting that there may
be a few bugs still left around. And this is actuall a *part* of the QA
process. With open source software the consumer is part of the process,
rather than just someone that gets the end product and complains loudly
if things don't work, and perhaps doesn't pay.
THERE IS NO DEMAND FROM CUSTOMERS FOR FREQUENT RELEASES
I don't know where you have worked, but the customers where I have
worked were always expecting things ASAP, and sooner if possible
And in open source, again, there are no paying customers. The customers
are simply the users, and they often do want frequent releases. Though
you are right, not all of them do.
Just some of my thoughts.
Regards
Paul
I have joined libreoffice for contributing to development.
Amit
If we have to beat Microsoft then we need to focus only on what Microsoft
provides and not on .odt format, etc. We cannot beat Microsoft by
introducing a new format and expecting customers to use new formats (I use
Microsoft formats only and whatever other formats is suported by Microsoft).
We need to beat Microsoft at its own game by doing what they are doing in
office suite. A new format is not going to change the game but being
totally compatible and stable with the formats that Micorosoft supports
(xls, xlsx, doc, docx, save as pdf, text, etc.) is going to change the game.
Amit
There was an announcement from MS that they are going to go to a faster release cycle. The plan was that a new version of MSO, and other software from them, will be released every 3 or 4 months instead of every 2 or 3 years.
As for LO being released with "bugs", most software seems to have bug fixes every so often.
As for the fast release cycle, we do not want our users to wait months and months for the newest version with the bug fixes, improvements of included features, and new ones. We do not have staff to test each LO release on every OS and system variation, plus all possible combination of document usage. We release the "early adopters" versions 4.1.0 through .2 or .3. But the "conservative" and least likely to have issue versions starting with .4 or .5. This is in the Release Plan documentation. For all users that want the "most stable" and "least buggy" version[s] of LO, most of us tend to recommend to our "clients" that they start with version .4 or .5 of a line and not an earlier one, unless there is a major need for some new and improved feature.
So for the most conservative users, I would go with 3.6.7. The next lever of user, like most of them, I would have then use 4.0.4 or 4.0.5 when it comes out. I would not offer most of my users the .0 through .3 versions of LO for their use in the home or office. I may try the .0 or .1 versions myself, though.
I am working on the 4.1.0 version of the NA-DVD .iso file to be uploaded to the DVD download page[s], as soon as I know if or when the portable version of it comes out. Yet, I will not hand these 4.1.0 DVDs out to my list of users, home or office ones. I will be waiting for 4.0.5 for my next round of handouts, unless I need some before then.
I started programming in the 1970's, on DEC PDP/11 systems. Saw the introduction of the PCs to the market. Used the first Mac computer. I earned 2 degrees in mainframe programming, one business and one science, then later one degree in the network technology area. I never worked for any "big name" companies like Cisco, but I worked in various fields. I was forced to retire after a debilitating set of injuries and my 2nd and 3rd strokes. Been "retired" since the around 2004.
As for the need to "beat" MS, they are slowly loosing ground all by themselves with such marketing flops like the Surface RT tablet. People were not buying their newest versions of MSO, so they started the idea of renting it instead, telling people it is a better idea. But, if you miss a payment or stop paying all together, you will loose you office suite. If you use their online version, you may loose even more, like your online documents.
Most governments and agencies are looking towards open source to fill their needs, before they look into buying proprietary software package solutions. Look to all of the press releases on which big company, city, or country, is not switching over to open source office suites, mostly LibreOffice at this point. MS is really loosing ground in Europe, as far as I have read. The USA is still not moving towards open source as fast as other countries, but this market is something MS does not want to loose. We are just so big and profitable for MS, they will do anything to keep the USA under their corporate "thumbs".
But the is movement in the private sector of the market. Homes and small offices cannot afford to keep paying MS's blood money year after year. I stopped at MSO 2003. I still have to deal with Windows 7, but I prefer using Linux for most of my work and desktops.
Sure, LO can have issues from time to time. But, unlike the "big boys", we are open with our issues and will do our best to fix the problems our users tells us about. As I said before, that is why we have a faster release cycle so we can offer the bug fixes in a timely manor. To be honest, you do not see this as up-front with MSO. They do offer fixes every so often, but their system involves patching the installed packages. LO is not designed that way and is too "internally integrated" to just replace a piece of coding in a small library file. So LO needs to have the entire version replaced with a new one to get the fixes and improvements to the user. I have no issues with that. Some people just do not want to think about upgrading their packages after they are installed. So we have the "conservative" releases so they can avoid the issues in the "early adopters" releases.
.
Hi Paul,
Please find my answers below.
Regards,
Amit
Hi Amit,
While your CV is impressive, this is still just your opinion. For open
source software, it seems that this isn't true. "Release early and
release often" is a mantra that is oft repeated; it seems that several
open source projects have found this to be the most effective way of
keeping interest from dying down.
You are right that it is my opinion but I believe that it will benefit open
source software. We should not apply "Release early and
release often" to Libree office because Libre office is a very important
piece of software that's going to save billions of dollars from going into
Microsoft's pockets. We cannot afford to fail in this one. For me, this is
the most important free software, even more important than linux because it
saves me money.
> The best way of doing this is to release stable versions only
As stated above, I don't think this is true. Stable versions *are*
released, if people wish to stick to them, but newer versions are also
released so that people can adopt them early if they wish for newer
features. This does mean people are implicitly accepting that there may
be a few bugs still left around. And this is actuall a *part* of the QA
process. With open source software the consumer is part of the process,
rather than just someone that gets the end product and complains loudly
if things don't work, and perhaps doesn't pay.
The main problem here is that the user does not know wheher the next
release is more stable than previous one or not. And the user will get
caught in the conflict in the sense that he will think that may be if he
does not upgrade then he might be losing out on some features. This
conflict makes him try to use the new release and then he gets frustrated.
The same thing had happened to me when I was using Open Office. I ENDED UP
BUYING MICROSOFT OFFICE BECAUSE OPENOFFICE WAS NOT STABLE.
A customer can compromise on fetaures but not on stability. A stable
release with less formatting options is much more desirable than an
unstable software with lots of formatting options.
""""""""""""""With an un-stable software, a customer cannot get anything
done and he might go back to buying Microsoft office.""""""""""""""
> THERE IS NO DEMAND FROM CUSTOMERS FOR FREQUENT RELEASES
I don't know where you have worked, but the customers where I have
worked were always expecting things ASAP, and sooner if possible
And in open source, again, there are no paying customers. The customers
are simply the users, and they often do want frequent releases. Though
you are right, not all of them do.
The customers are always demanding something because they don't get
anything because of which they can keep quiet for six months. If we give
them good stable product with less features then they will be quiet for six
months.
Just some of my thoughts.
Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate them.
I am not using the standard format of replying but I am impressed with your
achievements.
As far as LO is concerned can we atleast make sure that LO does not crash.
I ended up buying Microsoft Office because OpenOffice used to crash a lot.
I have a suggestion that can avoid random crashes and I have used it to
avoid random crashes and it costs only one extra movl instruction. I will
be suggesting it to the development team shortly.
Regards,
Amit
Hi Amit,
I am very much appreciate your opinion and it is absolutely true. As a user a
rather want to have these little nasty bugs eliminated, still in LO. (i.e.
spelling correction, ..). You dont need to reinvent the wheel every month.
Atlhough I work in totally different business, I made the same experience as
you mentioned for programmers. The pharma industry wants to put new products
in the market with exorbitant prices, dicouraging the old drugs with known
side effects and repeat the cycle before the side effects of the new ones
become apparent.
Walther
Hi Amit,
I'm combining a couple of mails here:
If we have to beat Microsoft then we need to focus only on what
Microsoft provides and not on .odt format, etc.
This is most definitely *not* what LO should be doing. .odt is a good,
open standard that we need to keep using, so that different software
can collaborate. Microsoft's file formats are not open, and do not
follow standards, they even change the format themselves every so
often. Trying to keep up with that (which LO does) means little
bugs and constant changes (and thus necessitates releasing often), and
worst of all if we abandon .odt in favour of that, we will lose the
standard, open format that is one of the best features of LO. Sure, at
the moment most people only worry about does it work with MS Office,
but having an open standard means not only am I sure I will be able to
read my documents in 20 years, but other software that is written to
the same standard can inter-operate on my documents, and I can do batch
operations on the documents with other tools, because they are simply
compressed xml files. Open standards are a *good thing*, and one of the
main reasons to choose LO over MS Office.
being totally compatible and stable with the formats that Micorosoft
supports
This is almost impossible, given that the formats are closed, and don't
stay standard.
For me, this is the most important free software, even more important
than linux because it saves me money.
Not everybody has the same motives as you, and therefore they have
different priorities.
The main problem here is that the user does not know wheher the next
release is more stable than previous one or not.
I guess you are right on this one. Maybe the LO website should be a bit
more explicit in detailing to new users the difference between the
extra stable older software, the newer software that is mostly stable
and has newer features, and the ultra-new beta versions that aren't
stable yet. Everybody here seems to know the difference and recommends
the right product to the right people, but we can't expect everybody
who goes to the site to download LO to know what the different versions
mean. Maybe this is something for the site maintainers to think about?
A customer can compromise on fetaures but not on stability
Actually, from what I've gathered from this list, it seems the problems
half the time are new features that users want, and half the time bugs.
Well, maybe not exactly a 50-50 split, but still. Yes, there are a few
complaints about things that work in MS Office that don't work in LO,
and users could end up going back to MS Office if they can't do what
they are used to in LO. But there are also things users want to do that
don't exist in MS Office. Those features would make a compelling reason
to switch, if LO could do stuff that MS Office couldn't that people
found usefull. I think there is enough demand from users for new
features that devs are caught in a catch-22. If they develop new
features and forget about the bugs, people complain the software is not
stable, if they only fix bugs, people demand new features and complain
the product is stagnating. There are only so many devs, so they do the
best they can. And in order to get new features *and* new bug fixes
out, they need to release often. I say kudos to them, I think they're
doing a great job.
So no, I don't think users *can* compromise on features. Some can, but
others can't. The devs need to balance the two.
Regards
Paul
Amit wrote:
The main problem here is that the user does not know wheher the next
release is more stable than previous one or not. And the user will get
caught in the conflict in the sense that he will think that may be if he
does not upgrade then he might be losing out on some features. This
conflict makes him try to use the new release and then he gets frustrated.
The same thing had happened to me when I was using Open Office. I ENDED UP
BUYING MICROSOFT OFFICE BECAUSE OPENOFFICE WAS NOT STABLE.
A customer can compromise on fetaures but not on stability. A stable
release with less formatting options is much more desirable than an
unstable software with lots of formatting options.
I fully agree with Amit. I'm "just" a user, not a developer. As a user, my primary concern is knowing my program will do what I need faithfully and without bugs. I will gladly substitute advanced features for stability. And, it really frosts me to see a new release resurrect bugs that had been previously fixed. Nothing feels worse than going backwards with a program.
Until recently, like many, I was confused by the LO release cycle, always thinking that the latest release would be the best and most stable. But, recently, I saw the graph showing how it all works. It appears to me as if, with LO, we users are doing the testing that commercial companies do in-house. I honestly don't like it and I suspect that this way of doing things will drive users away.
Virgil
Hi Virgil,
Just to comment on one aspect:
It appears to me as if, with LO, we users are doing the testing that
commercial companies do in-house.
Well, yes, kind of. You see, the open source world doesn't have lots of
paid developers to do this sort of testing, so it does in part rely on
the user base for this. Some of the users like being involved, some,
like you, may not. Having so many people involved does, in many people's
opinion, result in a better, more stable product faster than with
commercial software.
I honestly don't like it and I suspect that this way of doing things
will drive users away.
Unfortunately it may drive some away. There isn't much to be done about
that, I fear, given that there isn't a budget for doing all the testing
in-house, and any bugs that got missed would still be left for the user
to find, just like with commercial software. Open source is just more
up-front about admitting that the user may encounter bugs. The best we
can hope for is that those that don't want to risk bugs, and don't mind
sacrificing features, will stick to more stable versions.
And perhaps being clearer on the website will help users make that
choice.
You can't have both stability and features in one version. Either a new
version with the feature is released early, possibly with other bugs in
it, or it is released late when more bugs have been found, but then you
have to just do without it until it is released.
I do think that there should be a better way to install side-by-side
versions, such that users can easily try out the new features of a
newer release, to see if any feature they desire has been added (or any
bug they found has been fixed), without giving up the stability of their
current, stable version. A recent thread spoke of how AOO doesn't
uninstall previous versions, while LO does. I feel LO should clearly
give you the choice during the install, allowing you to simply upgrade
if you wish (removing the old version), or install next to the old
version, giving you both. Something for the devs to think about?
Just my thoughts.
Paul
Hi Amit and Paul and . . .
I am just an ordinary user -- historian by training, academic researcher in medicine by profession. I, and most with whom I work and come into contact, wish for, hope for, and strongly prefer stable releases in a work environment that requires interoperability with M$ products. One difficulty: it is not always -- in fact, it is rarely -- clear what is the latest "stable" release. I use both OO and LO, and that seems true of both. My wish is that the developer-types and other enthusiasts think more carefully, tolerantly, and generously about the technologically unsophisticated ordinary user.
Thank you.
ernie kurtz
ernestkurtz.com
> A customer can compromise on fetaures but not on stability
Actually, from what I've gathered from this list, it seems the problems
half the time are new features that users want, and half the time bugs.
Well, maybe not exactly a 50-50 split, but still. Yes, there are a few
complaints about things that work in MS Office that don't work in LO,
and users could end up going back to MS Office if they can't do what
they are used to in LO. But there are also things users want to do that
don't exist in MS Office. Those features would make a compelling reason
to switch, if LO could do stuff that MS Office couldn't that people
found usefull. I think there is enough demand from users for new
features that devs are caught in a catch-22. If they develop new
features and forget about the bugs, people complain the software is not
stable, if they only fix bugs, people demand new features and complain
the product is stagnating. There are only so many devs, so they do the
best they can. And in order to get new features *and* new bug fixes
out, they need to release often. I say kudos to them, I think they're
doing a great job.So no, I don't think users *can* compromise on features. Some can, but
others can't. The devs need to balance the two.
The customer will always demand for something. If we treat customers like
a baby the we will know quickly that all that the customer demands is not
good for the customer but since we are treating the customer like a baby we
will give him goodies that he will appreciate later. We should not give
into what the customer wants "now" (at least not with LO) because in the
end LO is going to very stable and popular. So, why we should take a risk
by giving into customers demands and make LO a non-stable product.
I have worked with a customer who wanted 24 hours monitoring of his systems
and I really didn't like because I knew that it is not going to solve his
problems. So, I raised this issue everytime and eventually he relented and
then I fixed many bugs (crashes, etc) because I got time to fix them and
eventually the customer became happy. This customer was not all happy for
more than a year but when I arrived, I knew what was good for the customer
and I didn't give into his demands but I gave him but he wanted in 4 months
and he was very happy in the end.
Regards,
Amit
Lots of typo in the last reply, so sending again..
The customer will always demand for something. If we treat customers like a
baby then we will know quickly that all that which customer demands is not
good for the customer but since we are treating the customer like a baby we
will give him goodies that he will appreciate later. We should not give
into what the customer wants "now" (at least not with LO) because in the
end LO is going to be very stable and popular product. So, why should we
take a risk by giving into customers demands and make LO a non-stable
product.
I have worked with a customer who wanted 24 hours monitoring of his systems
and I really didn't like it because I knew that it was not going to solve
his problems. So, I raised this issue everytime and eventually he relented
and then I fixed quite a few bugs (crashes, etc.) and also got few bugs
implemented from my team because I got time to fix them and eventually the
customer became happy. This customer was not all happy for more than a year
but when I arrived, I knew what was good for the customer and I didn't give
into his demands. But I gave him what he wanted in 4 months and he was very
happy in the end.
Regards,
Amit
<snip>
Hi all
I too am an end user and not a developer. From my perspective it is not at all difficult to generally keep up to date with the latest software (although the 4.1. desktop-integration thing threw me for a while). All new releases are clearly badged: don't use on production machines. So don't then. This is not the fault of the developers if people install software that is not to be used on production machines on production machines. If your sysadmin is chasing the latest releases, s/he needs to decide on stability versus the latest gizmo that may well lead to a broader instability elsewhere.
Unfortunately, MS tends to make its own products backward incompatible, forcing businesses to fork out resources chasing the upgrade cycle, or to lock in with a given OS version and the tools which work with it, and patching it up for security holes and with service packs (which also don't always work as expected!) and biding time until the licenses expire. MS is also not known for its kindly disposition towards sharing (unless, of course, its your data and remote access to your machine by the NSA), which makes it difficult for OSS developers to keep their software up to date and interoperable, exacerbated by companies like MS which will continue to pour resources specifically to stay ahead in market dominance and exclude any potential rivals. So, there will always be catching up and new releases with bug fixes, features and the inevitable bugs.
If you want to use LibO, there are certain responsibilities a user would benefit from assuming: be responsible for what you install - don't use new releases for production work that demands stability. If you want the latest MS interoperability feature, then you trade stability for innovation. Your call. As Kracked and Tom and Paul wrote previously, select a conservative update value or just go with the version packaged by your distro if using GNU/ Linux or your BSD flavour.
The LibO developers have put together a great suite of software that is stable, flexible, scalable, fast, stays out of the way of the user (for the most part, but I still prefer greater flexibility with the bullets and numbering format option, and still struggle with multiple user styles! ), and so we, as users, need to step forward a bit in their direction too by being more responsible for our own interactions with the software.
There is no good need for you to chase the upgrade cycle unless the benefits of doing so outweigh the benefits of maintaining a stable system. This is just good management whether someone is or is not technologically unsophisticated: don't mess with what is mission critical unless you have a damn good reason to do so and can do so knowing how to reverse the process if needs be. As a user, especially in this day and age, this is your responsibility, not the developers.
£0.02