LibreOffice Still?

users
#56

Hello Paul,

>
>
>
>
>> Paul : did you intend to post this off list?
>
>No, sorry, my bad for not checking the address. I just clicked
>"reply". For most messages that goes to the list, I don't know why
>some people seem to have it that their messages are set to reply
>off-list.
>
>> >Sorry, Charles, but I have to respectfully disagree:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> LTS will never, however magically produce a "better quality
>> >> >> release"
>> >> >
>> >> > No, not magically, but by the very nature of it being around
>> >> > for longer it will, in the end, result in a more stable
>> >> > product.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Really? So a software "being around" gets patches through the
>> >> Holy
>
>> >> Spirit?
>> >
>> >No, it gets patches the same way a ".6" release of a software gets
>> >more patches than a ".0" release.
>>
>> That is your definition of an LTS. Not a bad one but it does not
>> change the definition much...
>
>It is merely the common definition.

Where can I find this common definition? To me it is a possible one
but not the exclusive one . Anyway: it does not overly matter in our
case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support

"Long-term support (LTS) is term used to describe special versions or
editions of software designed to be supported for a longer than normal
period."

>
>>
>> >The idea of a version being around for
>> >longer having more patches in it is well understood, and in fact
>> >has been something you have commented on regarding the benefit of
>> >the "Still" branch.
>> >
>> >LTS versions don't *start off* more stable, they only become more
>> >stable.
>>
>> I agree.
>> >
>> >
>> >> LTS implies the existence of a business and a support
>> >> machinery, not the virtue of time.
>> >
>> >No, it doesn't. It may be the case for Canonical that the LTS
>> >version has more support machinery, but the concept of LTS is just
>> >that it will be supported for a guaranteed amount of time, and not
>> >retired early, such that adopters can be sure that for a specific
>> >duration they will not have to upgrade to get support and patches.
>>
>> So developers will obviously have an incentive to develop a LTS
>> for free... not really seen this working well before honestly. And
>> I have been working in linux distros for some time.
>
>They will have the same incentive that they do for any release. Why
>would they decide not to work on it just because they are not being
>paid? They're not being paid for any of their other work anyway.

Ah. You seem to ignore 1) the itch to scratch 2) money as an
incentive. To think that they are not paid for any of their work is
both factually wrong and dangerous. At least within the LibreOffice
project and many others as well developers are paid directly or
indirectly for their work on libreoffice.

This is missing my point, which was that LTS doesn't mean there is
"more support machinery" requiring special contracts, and therefore
necessarily an LTS version is a version paid for by some company or
companies, but that LTS is simply a version that will be around for
longer, for whatever reason. People may or may not choose to work on an
LTS version, but certainly a big support contract isn't the only reason
they ever would.

So your points above don't really count either for or against what I
was trying to say, but in this context:

2) If developers are being paid, then the person/organisation paying
can decide what to pay them for, so can decide to pay them to maintain
an LTS version. Whether the person/organisation has the funds to pay
for an LTS version without special support contracts or not isn't the
point.

1) It is both factually wrong and dangerous to assume that developers
only work because they are being paid or are scratching an itch. If
you're saying that an LTS version wouldn't hold their interest, I say
that if that were the case, assuming they aren't being paid (otherwise
see 2. above), they would never work on the "Still" branch. Why would
they if it is boring? They do because it isn't only about what is the
flavour of the moment for them. They also have at least some sense of
duty to the project, and work on things that are necessary even if it
isn't the most interesting. If they didn't the project would quickly
fall apart. So if they have decided that an LTS version is important,
they will devote some time to it even if no one is paying them and
there are newer development branches to work on.

If by all this you are trying to say that LO doesn't have the funding
nor the developer resources to afford an LTS branch, that may well be
the case. It may even be the case for open source projects in general.
But that doesn't change the fact that the concept of an LTS version has
nothing to do with the business deals behind it.

#57

Hi Tom,

I will try to rephrase it... Fresh is going to be renamed to Still (Stable) after a while. Bugs not found in Fresh will land in Stable within 6M... So the quality of the Stable will decrease if less people use the Fresh branch... So we need to find bugs early in the cycle ( when it is in the Fresh " state" (even better in the RCs and Betas before it is the Fresh release)). Developers need time to fix bugs, so it would be ideal to work with a daily build from time to time to ensure the correct function there (daily build is from master branch). ( sorry, I am involved in QA. I "do not care" if a user is able to submit a bug, we have so many bugs to take care. It is important that more advanced users (who know what a Bug in a software means) uses the Fresh branch. I just want to point out, that we have many bug reports, when we release a "Fresh" branch and that the feedback is more valuable at the beginning of the life- cycle then at the end....

Sorry that this resulted in one paragraph (typed from iPad).... To cut it short: We need early feedback in order to have time to improve the software quality.... I hope I was able to carry across _my_ point... (I know, from a marketing prospective not perfect :wink: )... If not, please ask :slight_smile:

Liebe Grüße, / Yours,
Florian Reisinger

#58

Hi Tom,

If we do not find the bugs in the fresh version, they won't be
resolved until the rename to Stable/Still. If less use Fresh, the
quality of the next stable will be lower.... Does this help?

That is true, but it still seems dangerous to push new users towards
Fresh. If users start with Stable, then, after learning that it is
stable, are pushed towards Fresh to get newer features, then the ones
who want stability won't move across and will be happy, and the ones who
want new features will move, knowing there is stability to fall back
on, and so will also be happy. Should they find that everything works,
they will be happy with new features, and should they find instability,
they will be happy to fall back on the stable version, knowing that
they had taken a *slight* risk.

Conversely, if you push all new people to Fresh, any who find no bugs
will be happy, but any that find bugs will have the impression that LO
is buggy and unstable, and won't necessarily know about Stable to fall
back on. Those that are told about Stable will undoubtedly grumble
about the fact that they should have been told about it in the first
place.

I'm not saying that this is a simple matter, just that in my opinion it
is far better to offer the Stable branch as the default install, and
urge users to try out the Fresh branch when they start asking about
features. Once they've gotten as far as asking about features, they're
already far enough in the process to get help should there be any
unexpected problems with Fresh. Also, giving proper explanations (well,
proper brief explanations with a link to a more detailed explanation) on
the download page lets new users evaluate the choice themselves, and
that way they are less likely to be angry when caught out by something.

There should still be enough users of Fresh in this scenario to allow
for the needed user testing.

Paul

#59

Hi Florian,

Hi Tom,
[...]

Thanks for your encouraging attempts to explain over and again.
I would expect that only for newcomers those items could ask for _some_
explanation.

Cheers,
Cor

#60

Just to add another point... (see inline)

> Hi Tom,
>
> If we do not find the bugs in the fresh version, they won't be
> resolved until the rename to Stable/Still. If less use Fresh, the
> quality of the next stable will be lower.... Does this help?

That is true, but it still seems dangerous to push new users towards
Fresh. If users start with Stable, then, after learning that it is
stable, are pushed towards Fresh to get newer features, then the ones
who want stability won't move across and will be happy, and the ones
who want new features will move, knowing there is stability to fall
back on, and so will also be happy. Should they find that everything
works, they will be happy with new features, and should they find
instability, they will be happy to fall back on the stable version,
knowing that they had taken a *slight* risk.

Conversely, if you push all new people to Fresh, any who find no bugs
will be happy, but any that find bugs will have the impression that LO
is buggy and unstable, and won't necessarily know about Stable to fall
back on. Those that are told about Stable will undoubtedly grumble
about the fact that they should have been told about it in the first
place.

I'm not saying that this is a simple matter, just that in my opinion
it is far better to offer the Stable branch as the default install,
and urge users to try out the Fresh branch when they start asking
about features. Once they've gotten as far as asking about features,
they're already far enough in the process to get help should there be
any unexpected problems with Fresh.

They're also far enough along in the process to offer bug reports...

#61

Paul,

The fresh branch is stable enough for everyone to use. LibreOffice does
not pilot planes, it does not usually crash, it does the job. There are
people who want newer features and people who want more tested
versions. There's food for everyone.

Now: if you have ideas for new names, etc. you are welcome to
contribute to our marketing team.

Best,

Charles.

#62

Paul,

The fresh branch is stable enough for everyone to use. LibreOffice
does not pilot planes, it does not usually crash, it does the job.
There are people who want newer features and people who want more
tested versions. There's food for everyone.

Yes, there is, and no one is saying any different. In fact, I am saying
that there are people who want both, and so *both* should be offered.
But by your own admission, one of those branches is "more stable". The
difference might be slight, but it is enough for the people behind LO
to continue to offer it when the newer, more featureful branch is also
being offered.

So for me first prize would be to have both branches as equal downloads
on the LO download page. With a clear, concise explanation of what each
offers, and a link to a slightly longer, fuller explanation. That is
exactly what I am proposing should be done.

But barring that, if LO wants to keep a single download as the primary
download, as it currently is, then I am firm in my belief that the
primary download should not be the less stable branch, but should
instead be the more stable branch.

More experienced users will know where to look for the version they
require, but it is my belief that new users, the kind that will simply
click on the big shiny download button, prefer stability over features.
In the case of an office suite like LO, how much of the new features do
they even use? Of course people want new features, I just think that
new users would prefer stability, or even better yet, a clearly
explained choice, rather than features at the expense of stability. If
you have statistics to show otherwise, I'm sure you would have
presented them by now. If you disagree, that is of course fine, but it
remains purely our individual opinions until someone presents some
pertinent facts. Although as far as I can tell from the responses, it
seems most people here agree with me, so if I were the marketing team, I
would give it careful consideration.

Now: if you have ideas for new names, etc. you are welcome to
contribute to our marketing team.

Well, this particular discussion was about how the downloads are
presented, not about the names for each branch, and I have already made
my opinions on the branch names clear, but I will reiterate them here
for clarity:

"Still" should be "Stable"

"Fresh" *can* stay the same, but should rather be "Current" or
"Development"

Feel free to pass that on to the marketing team. I don't think I will
be joining another mailing list, one with an agenda that I am largely
not interested in, just to contribute that. This discussion was opened
here, and I contributed my opinions; I am happy leaving it at that. I'm
sure the right people are aware of this discussion, or, if not, that
someone who is on both lists will pass along our sentiments.

Paul

#63

+1
I have to do all the updates for our business. I can't rely on workers finding the more stable download.

Steve

#64

Paul-6 wrote

So for me first prize would be to have both branches as equal downloads
on the LO download page. With a clear, concise explanation of what each
offers, and a link to a slightly longer, fuller explanation. That is
exactly what I am proposing should be done.

But barring that, if LO wants to keep a single download as the primary
download, as it currently is, then I am firm in my belief that the
primary download should not be the less stable branch, but should
instead be the more stable branch.

+1

#65

<snip>

Not really. I have too much on my plate right now. Lots of computer work with little available/usable time on the computer. Too much pain to stay on the desktop, or laptop, for much time. Still have to download the 90+ files for the 4.2.6 NA DVD version. Still have to make the ISO file from the 4.3.0 version I downloaded the other day. Too many "local" offline projects to deal with as well. Just wish the insurance did not reject the last of the 3 procedures of the cycle since the first 2 were in prep for the 3rd. I was planning on that pain relief to catch up with the work.

SO
I hope someone can make a wiki page instead of me.

#66

Thanks Sophie
I have had bugs that others did not. One too an update of Ubuntu to remove the "bug"/issue with that version of LO. Another was fixed with the next version or three. There are too many systems out there, and too many flavors of various operating systems, Linux being "named" version of Linux and its version number, plus the different desktop environments, etc.. Ubuntu 13.xx/14.xx has Unity, with post install d.e.'s of KDE, MATE, Cinnamon, XFCE, Gnome3, and many others, along with Kubuntu, Lubuntu, and some others out there. Then add Linux Mint [Ubuntu based] different versions, and the other OS's that use .deb installs. Then add in all of the .rpm install types of Linux OS's. That is a lot of different combinations of version of Linux and desktop environments out there. I have some software that cannot run on the newest Ubuntu or Mint software, since there were changes in the packages needed in the display of a GUI - like Unity, MATE, KDE, etc.. So even the different version numbers have differences that could be an issue, or look like a bug, for LO and its user. Then deal with Windows, and Mac systems. NO testing team, even a 100 people, could test all of the functions of LO with every hardware, software, and OS/d.e. combination out there. The big software companies cannot, so why expect our alpha/beta/release version testers to do that job and find all of those issues/bugs?

4.3.0 passed the "testing and release rules" to get "published". Sure there will be issues in the x.x.0 version. There may be unresolved issues in the x.x.6/7 versions as well. Many have not have had any solutions found to resolve the issue[s] while others have not been replicated by the testers or only by one or two and the developers have not found what is causing the issues - yet.

I rarely pass on version below x.x.3 or .4 to others, and a lot of time not install the x.x.0 version on my systems, unless there is a major upgrade to a part of GUI or some other part of LO that I want to use. Some of the users will update their systems with each and every version in a cycle till the next line comes out and then they go to that line's x.x.0 version.

Our volunteer developers and testing users do their best, before the version go beyond the beta stage AND during the different version number updates. They do their best. Then we do our best to help the users who have problems with LO till the developers and testers can figure out how to fix the issue, if possible. There are too few doing the work on their own time after they get home from their "day jobs". They are volunteers and do not get paid. The last time I knew, we had only one paid person - the one who keeps our servers up and running. Then the money for that position comes from the donations to pay for the costs of the hardware and bandwidth to keep LibreOffice.com [and its associated sites] online and running properly.

I think we are doing a great job for a bunch of volunteers who do the work after they come home from their "day jobs" and spend a few hours on LO "stuff" taking those hours away from "family time". THANKS to all of our volunteers and their families.

Tim L. - volunteer

#67

Yes, and no.

As a general rule, Long Term Support is a direct function of
business/corporate support. (Debian is probably the best known example
of an entity that provides Long Term Support versions of software it
maintains, but not commercial support for that software.)

The major users of LTS versions of software are corporate entities. It
is not uncommon for those organizations to test software for three to
six months, prior to deploying it throughout the organization. Once
deployed, the expectation is that it will be used for at least three
years, with five to ten years being not uncommon. In extreme cases, the
software remains in use for 15+ years after original deployment. (I'm
aware of one firm that retired its "mission critical software" three
years ago. That software was written for MS-DOS 3.31, and would not run
on any later version of MS-DOS, nor on competitors, such as PC-DOS,
DrDos, and 4Dos.)

Were LibreOffice to offer an LTS version, then it would have to be
supported for at least one year, and probably two or three years. With
six months between versions, companies simply don't have the time tofix
the things that the new version breaks.

My recommendation would be:
* Bleeding edge development: Nightly Build: This version will physically
destroy your system. You have been warned. The Document Foundation is
not responsible for the resulting destruction;
* Beta: Version 4.5.x: This version will destroy your data. If that is
not an issue for you, then use it, because it has all the bells,
whistles, and bugs in it. The Document Foundation not responsible for
your data loss, or any other loss you suffer, by using this version;

* Stable: Version 4.4: This is the current version. Some of the bugs
have been removed, but it has all of the current bells and whistles;
* LTS: Version 4.0: This version may lack bells and whistles, but most
of the bugs have been removed. Bug fixes are deliberately incorporated
into this version. New bells and whistles are deliberately omitted from
this version;

I am deliberately tying the LTS version to increments in the major
version number. (I don't remember the criteria for incrementing the
major version number, and a search of the LibO site doesn't come up with
anything.)(LTS status is granted when version 5.1.0 is released, rather
than 5.0.0.)

#68

Hi :slight_smile:
I usually get mails from the Marketing List but didn't see any discussion
about the new ideas for branch names. If i had i might have mentioned that
Fresh vs Stagnant branch held some unfortunate connotations that might not
have been obvious.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#69

Hi, good night all:

  As I understand there are some official versions. I think that could be
better that The Document Foundation only has one version for all
languages for production and makes its firsts efforts to solve all the
most important bugs (This would be by user and programmer votes) before
to start a new version.

  In this way The Document Foundation assures to step up when the before
version is really OK ! for all and production.

  I think is better go more slowly but complete all important issues of
the official version than growing fast fast fast but would be with
disorders. And in this time as I know the version of production even has
bugs stand by to be solve.

  This words are because I appreciate so much the all efforts for get the
best for Libre Office but some times when we don`t focus in the same we
would loss some of them.

Regards,

Jorge Rodríguez

#70

No. Basically what you and Sophie are saying is that 'we fully expect
new/any user to download and use the "Fresh" branch by default so that
LO (dev?) can find an resolve bugs in the 'new & improved & added
feature' version'. That's just crazy talk.

I am somewhat astounded as I hear Charles complaining about funding
(rightly so, that's his job), users complaining about lack of bug fixes
w/dev's LO countering with 'we only have a certain amount of resources &
have to prioritise' etc., etc. So why even have two branches to begin with?

The Fresh/Still nonsense is just that - nonsense. Here is a link to the
internet archive from LO Download in 2013 Dec 31:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20131231021742/http://www.libreoffice.org/download>

On that page there is no "Fresh", "Stable", "Still" et al; there is only
download defaulting to 4.1.4. and minor link options to change to 4.0 or
'Pre-releases' 4.2. That download page makes complete sense. Why on
earth the "private marketing list" change to the current nonsense?

@TDF: Please just stop. Go back to the download page of December 2013 &
keep it simple.
  IMO you should just drop the "Still" branch and concentrate your dev
efforts on one *single* user release. The next time that I (as a user)
hear that you've not enough resources to address a bug report I'll have
to ask: so, how many devs are working on 'Fresh' v 'Still' v 'Daily' v
'Trunk' v EOL, etc? Can you not fix the bug because these folks are
spread so thin across the various "branches" that they can't properly
concentrate on a baseline release fix?

@Sophie/Florian: The admission that 'Fresh' is the default so that bugs
will be identified earlier is, IMO, nuts (other words come to mind, but
I'll try to keep this civilized). 'Hello World - take our RC (X.Y.0) and
use it by default so that we can debug it' is not a good thing to
announce/promote here or elsewhere.

@Charles: you keep asking for users on in this thread to suggest a new
name ("Now: if you have ideas for new names, etc. you are welcome to
contribute to our marketing team.) - no name is necessary, nor should it
be necessary for users on this list to need to subscribe to the
marketing list to voice their concerns. You are TDF - instead invite the
"private marketing list" members to participate in this thread, this is
afterall a user & user support concern. BTW: for those that may want to
do this anyway, just how does one gain access to this "private marketing
list" that Sophie spoke of? How about providing a link to a transcript
of the "private marketing list" contents so that others on this "open
source" project can review?

Bottom line is that I (and others) disagree with the "private marketing
list" decision to go with the existing 'Fresh/Still/whatever' download
page(s). Please consider simply rolling back to the Dec 2013 model.

#71

Hi Tom,

If we do not find the bugs in the fresh version, they won't be resolved until the rename to Stable/Still. If less use Fresh, the quality of the next stable will be lower.... Does this help?

No. Basically what you and Sophie are saying is that 'we fully expect
new/any user to download and use the "Fresh" branch by default so that
LO (dev?) can find an resolve bugs in the 'new & improved & added
feature' version'. That's just crazy talk.

No, that is how Free Software works. If you think it is crazy, then Ubuntu, Firefox, the Linux kernel, Debian, Fedora, Mint, VLC... every other project has that crazy way.

I am somewhat astounded as I hear Charles complaining about funding
(rightly so, that's his job),

huh? What is my job, according to you?

users complaining about lack of bug fixes
w/dev's LO countering with 'we only have a certain amount of resources &
have to prioritise' etc., etc. So why even have two branches to begin with?

Because branches do not cost more money than 10 or 1.

The Fresh/Still nonsense is just that - nonsense. Here is a link to the
internet archive from LO Download in 2013 Dec 31:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20131231021742/http://www.libreoffice.org/download>

On that page there is no "Fresh", "Stable", "Still" et al; there is only
download defaulting to 4.1.4. and minor link options to change to 4.0 or
'Pre-releases' 4.2. That download page makes complete sense. Why on
earth the "private marketing list" change to the current nonsense?

@TDF: Please just stop. Go back to the download page of December 2013 &
keep it simple.

@Noop: please stop complaining about changes. In 2010, you were already complaining about the same things.

  IMO you should just drop the "Still" branch and concentrate your dev
efforts on one *single* user release. The next time that I (as a user)
hear that you've not enough resources to address a bug report I'll have
to ask: so, how many devs are working on 'Fresh' v 'Still' v 'Daily' v
'Trunk' v EOL, etc? Can you not fix the bug because these folks are
spread so thin across the various "branches" that they can't properly
concentrate on a baseline release fix?

@Sophie/Florian: The admission that 'Fresh' is the default so that bugs
will be identified earlier is, IMO, nuts (other words come to mind, but
I'll try to keep this civilized). 'Hello World - take our RC (X.Y.0) and
use it by default so that we can debug it' is not a good thing to
announce/promote here or elsewhere.

@Charles: you keep asking for users on in this thread to suggest a new
name ("Now: if you have ideas for new names, etc. you are welcome to
contribute to our marketing team.) - no name is necessary, nor should it
be necessary for users on this list to need to subscribe to the
marketing list to voice their concerns. You are TDF - instead invite the
"private marketing list" members to participate in this thread, this is
afterall a user & user support concern. BTW: for those that may want to
do this anyway, just how does one gain access to this "private marketing
list" that Sophie spoke of? How about providing a link to a transcript
of the "private marketing list" contents so that others on this "open
source" project can review?

Do you think TDF is a company? TDF relies on volunteers. Our users are our future contributors. We are not Wal Mart. You don't buy things from us and users are not customers. So yes, even if it sounds crazy to you, we do highly encourage users to join our various teams. As for the private marketing list, yes we do use this list mostly for press/announcement preparations, otherwise news and text elements would be disclosed before due date. How do you join this list? Good question. By contributing, not by complaining, and by asking. And if that's not your call, we have plenty of other teams for you to join : https://www.libreoffice.org/community/get-involved/

If that's still not your call, and you just want to use LibreOffice... that's fine! we are happy that you do so.

Bottom line is that I (and others) disagree with the "private marketing
list" decision to go with the existing 'Fresh/Still/whatever' download
page(s). Please consider simply rolling back to the Dec 2013 model.

Thank you for your suggestion, but no, we won't. We have deployed a brand new website, asked for feedback on several completely open and public lists for several months. We feel good about the choices we have made (although we are still toying with the Still branch name) but no we won't come back to the December 2013, December 2010 or December 10 C.E. because some think the past is always better than the future.

Best,

Charles.

#72

Hi Tim, all,

Hi,

So, you do go through stages. You just misnomered them.

Why not just use that?

Stages:
Alpha
Beta
Release Candidate
Final Release Candidate (LO v4.3.0)
Stable (LO v4.2.6)

Please read this page to know more about our development process
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
and this to know more about the naming of our versions
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#Version_scheme

May be you'll understand that both are fully tested and stable.
But LibreOffice is a software that is used in very different
environments that we can't reproduce in our own. That's why, the time
being, advanced users are helping us to reduce the number of bugs and
regressions, that doesn't make the version unstable however.

Kind regards
Sophie

Thanks Sophie
I have had bugs that others did not. One too an update of Ubuntu to
remove the "bug"/issue with that version of LO. Another was fixed with
the next version or three. There are too many systems out there, and
too many flavors of various operating systems, Linux being "named"
version of Linux and its version number, plus the different desktop
environments, etc.. Ubuntu 13.xx/14.xx has Unity, with post install
d.e.'s of KDE, MATE, Cinnamon, XFCE, Gnome3, and many others, along with
Kubuntu, Lubuntu, and some others out there. Then add Linux Mint
[Ubuntu based] different versions, and the other OS's that use .deb
installs. Then add in all of the .rpm install types of Linux OS's.
That is a lot of different combinations of version of Linux and desktop
environments out there. I have some software that cannot run on the
newest Ubuntu or Mint software, since there were changes in the packages
needed in the display of a GUI - like Unity, MATE, KDE, etc.. So even
the different version numbers have differences that could be an issue,
or look like a bug, for LO and its user. Then deal with Windows, and
Mac systems. NO testing team, even a 100 people, could test all of the
functions of LO with every hardware, software, and OS/d.e. combination
out there. The big software companies cannot, so why expect our
alpha/beta/release version testers to do that job and find all of those
issues/bugs?

That's it exactly :slight_smile:

4.3.0 passed the "testing and release rules" to get "published". Sure
there will be issues in the x.x.0 version. There may be unresolved
issues in the x.x.6/7 versions as well. Many have not have had any
solutions found to resolve the issue[s] while others have not been
replicated by the testers or only by one or two and the developers have
not found what is causing the issues - yet.

I rarely pass on version below x.x.3 or .4 to others, and a lot of time
not install the x.x.0 version on my systems, unless there is a major
upgrade to a part of GUI or some other part of LO that I want to use.
Some of the users will update their systems with each and every version
in a cycle till the next line comes out and then they go to that line's
x.x.0 version.

yes

Our volunteer developers and testing users do their best, before the
version go beyond the beta stage AND during the different version number
updates. They do their best. Then we do our best to help the users who
have problems with LO till the developers and testers can figure out how
to fix the issue, if possible. There are too few doing the work on
their own time after they get home from their "day jobs". They are
volunteers and do not get paid. The last time I knew, we had only one
paid person - the one who keeps our servers up and running. Then the
money for that position comes from the donations to pay for the costs of
the hardware and bandwidth to keep LibreOffice.com [and its associated
sites] online and running properly.

Small correction here about paid persons by TDF, there is now the
Executive Director, the release manager, one person paid part time for
infra, and one person for L10/QA/release coordination and help on TDF
admin (me) and we will soon have a QA engineer.
see the Board decisions here:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_Decisions

I think we are doing a great job for a bunch of volunteers who do the
work after they come home from their "day jobs" and spend a few hours on
LO "stuff" taking those hours away from "family time". THANKS to all of
our volunteers and their families.

big +1 from my side :slight_smile: thanks a lot for your support and your work too!
Kind regards
Sophie

#73

Hi :slight_smile:
No-Op has been a huge help to many people on this User Mailing List since
the very early days of TDF. I know that user-support and customer service
are kinda frowned on as being not much work.

However it is the first point-of-contact between weeus and is a prime place
to build people up and recruit them for this and other teams. I bet there
are tons of people in various teams right now who wouldn't be there if it
hadn't been for No-Op inspiring and pushing them into it.

Instead of grumbling about how little work No-Op is doing how about doing
more work yourself to answer the unanswered questions here. Maybe that way
you could show us how little work it takes and we would learn to be
better. Or maybe, just maybe you'd find out how much hard work it takes.

The old web-page No-Op linked to was finally neat and tidy. Almost
elegant! It was finally easy to see how to change anything such as
language, OS, version. It was even quite a good way of showing off quite
what variety LO offers but done in way that wasn't confusing or hidden. At
last the buttons were proper buttons that could be pressed like real-world
buttons.

In chess games there is sometimes a dangerous moment when your position is
so perfect that any move is going to detract from that perfection. There
are times when you really need to pass and miss a go or lose the game.
That appears to have happened to the downloads page.

I was shocked by the downloads page today. The layout IS appalling and
confusing. It's difficult to find how to get anything other than the
default download. Then set choices kept getting forgotten. Tick-boxes
used inappropriately and didn't work.

Change just for the sake of change is not always positive.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#74

Hi :slight_smile:
No-Op has been a huge help to many people on this User Mailing List
since the very early days of TDF. I know that user-support and
customer service are kinda frowned on as being not much work.

I would never say that.

However it is the first point-of-contact between weeus and is a prime
place to build people up and recruit them for this and other teams. I
bet there are tons of people in various teams right now who wouldn't
be there if it hadn't been for No-Op inspiring and pushing them into
it.

I am a bit surprised by that but I could be wrong: Noop has had quite a few negative comments for years and it did not strike me that it could attract new volunteers or that he was helping people to become volunteers.

Instead of grumbling about how little work No-Op is doing how about
doing more work yourself to answer the unanswered questions here.
Maybe that way you could show us how little work it takes and we would
learn to be better. Or maybe, just maybe you'd find out how much hard
work it takes.

Let's do this then: what is hard to understand - I'm not saying everything's easy, but please describe, step by step, what is hard about contributing or finding information about contributing.

The old web-page No-Op linked to was finally neat and tidy. Almost
elegant! It was finally easy to see how to change anything such as
language, OS, version. It was even quite a good way of showing off
quite what variety LO offers but done in way that wasn't confusing or
hidden. At last the buttons were proper buttons that could be pressed
like real-world buttons.

In chess games there is sometimes a dangerous moment when your
position is so perfect that any move is going to detract from that
perfection. There are times when you really need to pass and miss a
go or lose the game. That appears to have happened to the downloads
page.

So this download page has been around for 6 months. There was a period of public development and public feedback collection of 3 months before that. Where were you? Where was Noop? (BTW: "I was on the users list and not anywhere else" is not a valid argument).

I was shocked by the downloads page today. The layout IS appalling
and confusing. It's difficult to find how to get anything other than
the default download. Then set choices kept getting forgotten.
Tick-boxes used inappropriately and didn't work.

Change just for the sake of change is not always positive.

True. Criticizing something for 4 years does not make it right either...

Best,

Charles.

#75

Quoting myself:

"please describe, step by step, what is hard
about contributing or finding information about contributing."

No answer to that question.

As for customer service, we don't do customer service. Volunteers provide users support. Users support in this case is not done as a consequence of a purchase or any sort of commercial transaction. It changes quite a lot of things. But as I wrote before: "I would never say that"...talking about belittling the value or complexity of users support.

Charles.