helping Users and LibreOffice - proposal

users
#1

Hi all,

Apparently we find ourselves in an interesting situation. With the 3.4.0 release, there are obviously more questions, people stumbling over bugs.
  - So to help the users, it is useful to point them to the fact that there is a stable 3.3.2 (3.3.3 soon) that they can use with more comfort.
  - However ... it is both valuable for the project, when the all do some work with the 'early adopter' versions.
So, I would propose that the regular helping hands on this list, try to allow for both interests. Apart from the mentioned arguments, it may as well be appealing for quite some people to, to try working with relative new features etc etc.

What do you think, would it be possible and useful (of course depending on the individual mail) to pay attention to both aspects?

That would obviously result in an attitude in which people are not only pushed back from the 3.4.0 to an older version, nor withhold explanation about the choice they have to work with one or another.. Well, each can find his own short or long sentences to explain :slight_smile:

some related links:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/05/13/announcing-a-new-beta-release/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Adapt-o-meter.png
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Release_Criteria

Cheers,

#2

Cor

Hi all,

Apparently we find ourselves in an interesting situation. With the 3.4.0
release, there are obviously more questions, people stumbling over bugs.
  - So to help the users, it is useful to point them to the fact that
there is a stable 3.3.2 (3.3.3 soon) that they can use with more comfort.
  - However ... it is both valuable for the project, when the all do
some work with the 'early adopter' versions.
So, I would propose that the regular helping hands on this list, try to
allow for both interests. Apart from the mentioned arguments, it may as
well be appealing for quite some people to, to try working with relative
new features etc etc.

What do you think, would it be possible and useful (of course depending
on the individual mail) to pay attention to both aspects?

That would obviously result in an attitude in which people are not only
pushed back from the 3.4.0 to an older version, nor withhold explanation
about the choice they have to work with one or another.. Well, each can
find his own short or long sentences to explain :slight_smile:

some related links:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/05/13/announcing-a-new-beta-release/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Adapt-o-meter.png
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Release_Criteria

Cheers,

--
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org

I have noticed that 3.4.0 seems to support 2010 docx and xlsx formats better than 3.3.2. I have not had any major issues with 3.4.0, quirky one issue in Calc but not a show stopper.

#3

I have 3.4.0 on my laptop trialing it, then to filter to the desktop at
home with 3.3.2 and finally to the office with the most stable version.
I am happy to answer to any version I am using, I think if the person
asking the question is clear what version he is using the answers will
be appropriate.
steve

#4

Hi planas,

planas wrote (11-06-11 06:12)

That would obviously result in an attitude in which people are not
only pushed back from the 3.4.0 to an older version, nor withhold
explanation about the choice they have to work with one or
another.. Well, each can find his own short or long sentences to
explain :slight_smile:

I have noticed that 3.4.0 seems to support 2010 docx and xlsx formats
better than 3.3.2. I have not had any major issues with 3.4.0, quirky
one issue in Calc but not a show stopper.

Indeed. That supports an approach to let people work with the new version too. Bugs however, are included. See e.g.
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/release-notes/#LO340

Best,

#5

Hi :slight_smile:
People do seem to have had a LOT of strange quirkiness from the 3.4.0 that
wasn't in the 3.3.2.

The 3.4.0 seems to be a regression and sounds more like a beta-release
especially with the disclaimer. However i don't see this as a huge problem
because the 3.4.0 is clearly a stepping-stone on the way to very much
lighter-weight code-base and we can expect the 3.4.1 to have tidied up trivial
issues. "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". I like the idea of
the 3.3.x being stable branch and the 3.4.x being testing/development.

If we can encourage people to use the 3.4.x series, post bug-reports and then
switch back to the 3.3.x series for serious use then we have something very
useful as long as we promote the 3.3.x series as being the first one to try in
corporate deployments.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

From: Steve Edmonds <steve.edmonds@ptglobal.com>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Sat, 11 June, 2011 5:58:50
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] helping Users and LibreOffice - proposal

> Cor
>
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Apparently we find ourselves in an interesting situation. With the 3.4.0
>> release, there are obviously more questions, people stumbling over bugs.
>> - So to help the users, it is useful to point them to the fact that
>> there is a stable 3.3.2 (3.3.3 soon) that they can use with more comfort.
>> - However ... it is both valuable for the project, when the all do
>> some work with the 'early adopter' versions.
>> So, I would propose that the regular helping hands on this list, try to
>> allow for both interests. Apart from the mentioned arguments, it may as
>> well be appealing for quite some people to, to try working with relative
>> new features etc etc.
>>
>> What do you think, would it be possible and useful (of course depending
>> on the individual mail) to pay attention to both aspects?
>>
>> That would obviously result in an attitude in which people are not only
>> pushed back from the 3.4.0 to an older version, nor withhold explanation
>> about the choice they have to work with one or another.. Well, each can
>> find his own short or long sentences to explain :slight_smile:
>>
>> some related links:
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
>>

http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/05/13/announcing-a-new-beta-release/

>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Adapt-o-meter.png
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Release_Criteria
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> - Cor
>> - http://nl.libreoffice.org
>>
>
> I have noticed that 3.4.0 seems to support 2010 docx and xlsx formats better
than 3.3.2. I have not had any major issues with 3.4.0, quirky one issue in
Calc but not a show stopper.
>
>
I have 3.4.0 on my laptop trialing it, then to filter to the desktop at
home with 3.3.2 and finally to the office with the most stable version.
I am happy to answer to any version I am using, I think if the person
asking the question is clear what version he is using the answers will
be appropriate.
steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@global.libreoffice.org
In case of problems unsubscribing, write to postmaster@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

deleted

#6

Hi Cour
(none of the following criticisms are directed at you, who are one of the
few (only?) members of the SC who sees this project as a productivity tool
for the users)

I don't know if you are aware that installing LibO 3.4.0 under Windows
silently uninstalls 3.3 without asking (even if the installer is run in
customized mode). Therefore it is not possible to have both versions
installed under Windows. I know this is possible under Linux but this
project doesn't care a f*ck about Windows users (even though they are the
majority of users, but hey, who cares?) so one can only recommend one
version OR the other.

Given the degree of regression and bugs added (I totally agree with Tom that
3.4.0 "sounds more like a beta-release") and that the developers are not too
worried about regressions, in my opinion if someone is using 3.3.2 for work
(and believe me: even if the LO site has a disclaimer about 3.4 being
experimental, all other download sites/mirrors don't, so expect a LOT of
angry users in the near future) I will not recommend 3.4 for anything other
than playing around.

In my opinion, releasing 3.4.0 as Stable was a major error and a shot on the
foot for this project.

But the all-mighty Release Schedule as to be met, no matter what comes out
of it...

Regards,
Pedro

#7

Hi :slight_smile:

Pedro i have to disagree with one of your points although i almost entirely
agree with the rest. The 3.4.0 HAD to be released when it was even tho it
wasn't ready (as we have seen from the jump in weird problems posted to the
users list).

Oracle were playing tactical games, rushing out their 1st release since their
3.3.0 and calling it 3.4.0. LibreOffice has had 2 clear releases since their
3.3.0 (the 3.3.1 and the 3.3.2) and were working on the 3rd, due at the time to
be called 3.3.4. Some segments of the press were hailing LibreOffice as much
faster developing than OOo because LO's 3.3.0 released the day before OOo's
3.3.0. BUT by calling their first release since then the "3.4.0" the public &
media's perception would be that Oracle had leap-frogged over LO and regained
the lead. (even tho it contained less work and less added functionality than the
3.3.1 (or even than the LO 3.3.0!)).

TDF showed that it was highly responsive, adaptable and crucially NOT stupid
about PR and dirty tricks by changing the name to 3.4.0 and releasing fast. As
a result Oracle have "caved in", realising they couldn't hope to compete against
TDF.

Oddly, despite several communications with them at all levels they didn't
reailse they stood to gain a LOT from co-operating with TDF, including the
highly profitable side of thing, paid corporate user-support (telephones, forums
etc). Hopefully the friendlier Apache Foundation or even TDF might be able to
offer that level of support. THere is plenty of room for co-operative
competition in that area. I think Oracle took everyone by surprise in caving-in
so fast and i would be even more surprised if Oracle didn't try to thro
something more damaging at TDF even now. I suspect TDF Steering and Founders
are prepared for it.

Just now we temporarily have to deal with the fall-out from the easy win. Which
is annoying but quite amusing at the same time.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#8

Hi all,

Apparently we find ourselves in an interesting situation. With the
3.4.0 release, there are obviously more questions, people stumbling
over bugs.
- So to help the users, it is useful to point them to the fact that
there is a stable 3.3.2 (3.3.3 soon) that they can use with more
comfort.
- However ... it is both valuable for the project, when the all do
some work with the 'early adopter' versions.
So, I would propose that the regular helping hands on this list, try
to allow for both interests. Apart from the mentioned arguments, it
may as well be appealing for quite some people to, to try working with
relative new features etc etc.

What do you think, would it be possible and useful (of course
depending on the individual mail) to pay attention to both aspects?

That would obviously result in an attitude in which people are not
only pushed back from the 3.4.0 to an older version, nor withhold
explanation about the choice they have to work with one or
another.. Well, each can find his own short or long sentences to
explain :slight_smile:

I think I understand, we need a way to say "3.4.0 is expected to have
problems" without scaring the user away.

I'm afraid some ways of warning about it will just scare the early
adopters, moving them to 3.3.2, without even a bug report about the bug.

Maybe one should instead focus on saying "if you can't use LibO with
this bug, please try 3.3.2 instead, otherwise you're welcome to continue
using 3.4.0 and report any bugs you find".

"3.4.0 should be usable, except for bugs like the one you just
found. This release was done exactly to catch hidden bugs."

Another way of making it less scary could be a list of known issues, so
one can say, by reading the list, if some issue will affect his/her
workflow. Is there such list? (more or less up to date?)

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Adapt-o-meter.png

:smiley:

#9

On 2011/06/11 5:55 AM Tom Davies wrote concerning "Re: helping Users and LibreOffice - proposal":

Oracle were playing tactical games, rushing out their 1st release since their
3.3.0 and calling it 3.4.0.

OpenOffice.org 3.4.0 has not been released. OOo 3.3.0 is the last version released in the stable line. In the development line OOo-Dev 3.4.0 Beta 1 is the latest version. There are usually more Betas, then Release Candidates before the final release.

There is no tactical game. This is the standard sequence of Dev releases for OOo.

Quit making stuff up.

#10

Can you install both at same time?

I would like to test 3.4.0 to see if any of the calc problems I have
with 3.3.2 are fixed.

#11

Tom have to disagree with coming out with a new version just to get it
out because a competior did something. In my 40+ years in the It field I
saw many companies do this and lose their reputation for good quality
products. ( Xerox, Data General, Digital Equipment all gone from making
main frames, mini's and other computer related products).

My thoughts are come out with a good quality product when its ready.
This does not mean wait forever, but get rid of themajor issues, add
functionality, test and then release. (Calc is good example ,in my mind,
of a product with problems, also some in writer when dealing with docx).
I'm trying to document and bug report the ones I see, but some are
documents I cannot attach because of the information they contain).

I will be glad to test 3.4.0 but I need to keep 3.3.2 running due to
monthly commitments. I hope to load opensuse 12.0 this week and then
3.4.0 with it to test.

Russ

openSUSE 11.4(2.6.37.6-0.5-desktop)|KDE Platform Version 4.6.3 (4.6.3)
"release 4"|Intel core2duo 2.5 MHZ,|8GB DDR3|GeForce 8400GS (NVIDIA-
Linux-x86_64-270.41.06)

#12

Hi :slight_smile:
I'm fairly certain there is a list but i'm not certain of how comprehensive it
is. Any release, even alpha releases have merit, extra functionality, reduced
size yada yada yada.

The 3.4.0 does normally work excellently well and is better at .docX and .xlsX
conversions, when it works. The problem is that when weird things go wrong that
weren't a problem in 3.3.2 then posting a bug-report and going back to 3.3.2 is
the fastest, easiest and most reliable answer.

In almost all cases the 3.4.0 is THE one to try first because the chances are
that it will work well. However, if people can only download 1 version, say on
mobile broadband with a low limit, or on corporate networks where you NEED to
only install once then going for the 3.3.2 makes sense even if that means
dipping-out on the extra compatibility.

There is nothing scary about it. No file corruption or anything outrageous at
the very worst, assuming everything goes wrong, all that's needed is a new
download and an install of the 3.3.2. Not really a big deal. Many people will
still have their old download of a previous release anyway.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#13

Hi :slight_smile:
Well the 3.4.1 is going to settle a lot of the issues and it's due out
reasonably soon, unrushed. Until then, or even beyond the, we have the 3.3.2
beign supported for quite a long time. Otherwise i would agree with you and i
don't entirely disagree now.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#14

It was just my old age and 2 cents remembering the way we used to
release software. Yes I'm using 3.3.2 but that's where my calc problems
started.

#15

ON Windows were 3.4.0 is no I could not. I have not update Linux from
3.3.2 or installed 3.4.0 along side yet.

The wierd part about MSO compatibility is I need both for different
reasons. At work our server MS Server 2003 does not understand any MSO
format after XP/2003 but a group I work has users who insist that
everyone uses MSO200&?2010 even those who have earlier MSO versions.

#16

Microsoft has a "compatibility pack", which adds support for the new
formats to older versions of office (the page lists 2000, 2002 and 2003
as possible targets for the "update").

Maybe it helps with the server? Probably depends on what exactly is done
with the files in the server, but here it goes:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?familyid=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displaylang=en&pf=true

#17

I use the Microsoft Compatibility Pack with Office 2003, and it works well. I didn't realize they had got that working all the way back to Office 2000 finally.

It helps if the folks who produce .docx files using Office 2007 and Office 2010 use what is called compatibility mode so that there documents are more acceptable "down-level" into earlier versions including those using the compatibility pack. (E.g., there is a checkbox in the Save As dialog of Word 2010 to "Maintain compatibility with previous versions of Word".)

Also, the additional ODF Converter 4.0 seems to work well at accepting ODF files into Office programs that have the Compatibility Pack installed. (It is a rather indirect process - the automatic conversion is to OOXML which the Compatibility Pack then takes from a temporary file into Office.)

The Compatibility Pack is a Microsoft Download. It looks like the installer for ODF Translator 4.0, the latest version, will install it if you don't have it already. Likewise for the .NET 2.0 features that it needs.

The ODF Translator is on SourceForge. More information at
<http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/download.html>.

- Dennis

PS: There is a chicken-and-egg problem with the ODF Converter documentation downloads. The documentation files are in OOXML .docx format, so you need the Compatibility Pack first in order to read any of that, or you can try them in LibreOffice of course.

#18

Hi,

upscope wrote (11-06-11 19:39)

Can you install both at same time?

A new release candidate or final release, replaces the previous one. This is common practice.
But yes, you can install it without 3.3.2 being removed.
See: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel

I would like to test 3.4.0 to see if any of the calc problems I have
with 3.3.2 are fixed.

Would be great. Thanks!

#19

Hi Nuno,

Nuno J. Silva wrote (11-06-11 14:35)

I think I understand, we need a way to say "3.4.0 is expected to have
problems" without scaring the user away.

Yes, that's it.

I'm afraid some ways of warning about it will just scare the early
adopters, moving them to 3.3.2, without even a bug report about the bug.

Maybe one should instead focus on saying "if you can't use LibO with
this bug, please try 3.3.2 instead, otherwise you're welcome to continue
using 3.4.0 and report any bugs you find".

For part of the public, it will be no problem too to have both versions working parallel.
See http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel

"3.4.0 should be usable, except for bugs like the one you just
found. This release was done exactly to catch hidden bugs."

It is hard to predict precisely what kind of bugs to expect or to catch.
It is important that people understand the rationale behind the release policy
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/05/13/announcing-a-new-beta-release/
and choose the version according to their needs/like.

Another way of making it less scary could be a list of known issues, so
one can say, by reading the list, if some issue will affect his/her
workflow. Is there such list? (more or less up to date?)

There is a list in the release notes
  http://www.libreoffice.org/download/release-notes/#LO340
but that is not updated.
Is anyone else aware of such a list, apart from a query in BugZilla?

Thanks,

#20

Hi Pedro,

plino wrote (11-06-11 13:29)

Hi Cour

  ( Cor is enough :wink: )

(none of the following criticisms are directed at you, who are one of the
few (only?) members of the SC who sees this project as a productivity tool
for the users)

(I really doubt if that is true... but I can imagine that not all communication from the past supports the feeling what you talk about)

I don't know if you are aware that installing LibO 3.4.0 under Windows
silently uninstalls 3.3 without asking

I know that it should per definition replace the previous version...

(even if the installer is run in customized mode).

but I do not know if the customized mode is the way to install it parallel.
Do you know/tried this one?
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel

Therefore it is not possible to have both versions installed under Windows.

If that is true, it is a bug. So ... :wink:

I know this is possible under Linux but this
project doesn't care a f*ck about Windows users (even though they are the
majority of users, but hey, who cares?) so one can only recommend one
version OR the other.

Well, maybe this project will benefit if we can get more people involved supporting windows testing. I work on that (within my limited means).

Given the degree of regression and bugs added (I totally agree with Tom that
3.4.0 "sounds more like a beta-release") and that the developers are not too
worried about regressions, in my opinion if someone is using 3.3.2 for work

I see no problem but advantages in the release policy.
But in this situation, with the many changes done recently, the situation is -let me say - a bit uncomfortable.

(and believe me: even if the LO site has a disclaimer about 3.4 being
experimental, all other download sites/mirrors don't, so expect a LOT of
angry users in the near future)

Hmm, indeed, if that works out like that, we have a problem.
Do you (or someone else) have an overview, some examples of those spots?

I will not recommend 3.4 for anything other than playing around.

Well, I do most regular work with it, but depending on the public, your recommendation sounds fair enough.

In my opinion, releasing 3.4.0 as Stable was a major error and a shot on the
foot for this project.

Despite the problems, I don't agree with that.

But the all-mighty Release Schedule as to be met, no matter what comes out
of it...

It looks like - at least currently.
Let's see how this evolves.

Thanks for your mail!
Cor