LibreOffice Still?

users
#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.

#76

>> 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.

Wow, I actually can't believe that you are seriously suggesting that
all other open source projects ask all their users, especially new ones,
to adopt a known unstable branch so that they can test it properly?

Surely you don't mean to suggest that. In fact, from what you've said in
the past, I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that. What I think you
meant to say is that you and Sophie are not implying that, but are
instead implying that the current "Fresh" branch is stable enough for
general use, and although the "Still" branch is slightly more stable,
you don't feel that the extra slight stability is important enough to
push users towards that branch instead of the "Fresh" branch.

Given that, the question then really *does* become why is it still
around? Surely it should just be relegated to the pile of old versions?
If Fresh has all the new features and is rock solid enough for general
use, why even have another branch that doesn't have the features and is
only negligibly more stable?

Anybody with serious stability requirements could easily find an older
version from the archives.

Of course, if you tried that, I think you would find a large portion of
people would complain, thereby suggesting that actually the perceived
need is to have the "Still" branch as the primary branch, but that's
just what I personally suspect will happen, not a guarantee.

>
> 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.

Uh, if they have developer resources going into backporting bugfixes
into them, then yes, the more you have, the more expensive it is.

>
> 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the change being raised on
this list?

#77

Hi :slight_smile:
Quite!!

Ubuntu makes it very clear that their LTS is more stable and that their
other branch is more exciting. They don't force all new users into using
their least stable branch. Instead of making it complicated and difficult
to change versions they make it easy. Instead of hiding behind misleading
words they make it very clear what the difference is and they do it in just
a very few words.

They don't make claims about their 6monthly releases being wonderfully
stable. They don't make claims about them getting support for quite a long
time. They could do easily but they don't. And why not? Why don't they
make such claims? The answer is because those are not the "Unique Selling
Point" of the 6monthlies. More than that, it would become confusing
because those are the main USPs of their other branch.

Heck trying to make such claims about the 6 monthlies would put people off
because it would lead to constant confusion and constant questions about
what the difference is between their 2 branches.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#78

Hi :slight_smile:
Ahh, i understand now. You don't mean to be insulting and don't even
notice when you do it.

Your statement, "As for customer service, we don't do customer service.",
well said. I'm not sure who the "we" is. It doesn't include almost anyone
on this mailing list since the whole reason for this mailing list is to
provide "customer service". It is what most of us are here for.

Your "please describe, step by step". Actually we deal with people here.
It's not like programming. There are rarely logical steps.

A first response might be to point them to documentation that covers
exactly what was asked. Ideally would summarise and simplify but would
also ask for more detail and/or background information. So there are 3
things that would seem to be vital but actually most of the time it's none
of those that really helped. The main thing that helped was an
acknowledgement that the question was heard by a human being. After that
the question starts to emerge. It's best when several people each jump in
with different types of answers or dealing with different aspect of what
the question might be. The o.p. tends to start responding to 1 of those
people and that tends to indicate the direction that the real question is
about.

For example a good answer to the question "My curtains are a bit charred.
How do i stop them getting like that?" might be "Grab your bag and leave
the building. Your house is on fire". Sometimes it takes a bit of a leap
like that. It's seldom something that can fit neatly into step-by-step
instructions.

Your ""I was on the users list and not anywhere else" is not a valid
argument" IS very belittling.
When something is finally fixed and has been working well do you assume
that the people who worked so hard on it would then go and break it?

I think most of us were guilty of assuming that once a thing was fixed and
could be happily maintained with little or no effort that attention would
move onto things that were still broken to fix them too. I can't believe
so much work has gone into breaking something that was fine. If the
web-designers really wanted to fix something how about helping all the
international translators sort theirs out? How about moving into UI or UX
design and lending a hand there. It's not like there is a shortage of
interesting things to do!
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#79

Hi :slight_smile:
Ahh, i understand now. You don't mean to be insulting and don't even
notice when you do it.

Your statement, "As for customer service, we don't do customer
service.",
well said. I'm not sure who the "we" is. It doesn't include almost
anyone
on this mailing list since the whole reason for this mailing list is to
provide "customer service". It is what >most of us are here for.

But you are not providing customer service. nothing going on here is customer service. Do you have a set of scripts and processes you have been told to follow? Are people here paying for this service? No. And that's quite normal because this is not a place for customer service. It is however a place for users support done for free and delivered as a community, centered on a software that is not a product but a community delivered set of stable versions.

Your "please describe, step by step". Actually we deal with people
here.
It's not like programming. There are >rarely logical steps.

People usually try to be logical when using an office suite. I asked you if you could describe problems encountered by people when trying to contribute to LibreOffice. Still no answer.

A first response might be to point them to documentation that covers
exactly what was asked. Ideally would summarise and simplify but would
also ask for more detail and/or background information. So there are 3
things that would seem to be vital but actually most of the time it's
none
of those that really helped. The main thing that helped was an
acknowledgement that the question was heard by a human being. After
that
the question starts to emerge. It's best when several people each jump
in
with different types of answers or dealing with different aspect of
what
the question might be. The o.p. tends to start responding to 1 of
those
people and that tends to indicate the direction that the real question
is
about.

For example a good answer to the question "My curtains are a bit
charred.
How do i stop them getting like that?" might be "Grab your bag and
leave
the building. Your house is on fire". Sometimes it takes a bit of a
leap
like that. It's seldom something that can fit neatly into step-by-step
instructions.

Your ""I was on the users list and not anywhere else" is not a valid
argument" IS very belittling.
When something is finally fixed and has been working well do you assume
that the people who worked so hard on it >would then go and break it?

We do work very hard to break everything we build. Absolutely . And we do it for the sole reason of driving you nuts.

I think most of us were guilty of assuming that once a thing was fixed
and
could be happily maintained with little or no effort that attention
would
move onto things that were still broken to fix them too. I can't
believe
so much work has gone into breaking something that was fine. If the
web-designers really wanted to fix something how about helping all the
international translators sort theirs out? How about moving into UI or
UX
design and lending a hand there. It's not like there is a shortage of
interesting things to do!

Tom : you are becoming really funny to talk to.

Best,

Charles.

#80

...

@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.

I'll forgo responding to your other personal references to me on this
list...

"Noop has always complained
about the two branches and the release pace. It does not make their
opinion invalid, but I'm suggesting a pattern here."
etc.

Certainly I do not come onto the marketing list and attempt personal
attacks on you. I wonder why you feel it necessary to do so here.

However, in looking over the 26 posts that I made here in 2010, I fail
to find one "complaining about the same things".

I suppose of the 840 posts that I've made here over the past 4 years,
some are bound to be critical at times. However I reckon that overall
I've tried to assist & be helpful. But of course you didn't start
posting (92 to date) here until 2013, so you may have missed a few where
I've gone out of my way to test & try and help other users resolve
issues via multiple versions and OS's - often all the same thread.

I've also contributed to, or created, bug reports in an effort to assist
as well. (I see that your entire contribution on the bug reports is one
bug having you on the cc list only.)

Not to worry Charles, I'll not bother with this list further. Y'all have
a great day.

Gary Lee

...

#81

Unfortunately, this is not always true. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS was based on a
buggy Unity, and although it was supported for a longer term than 12.10
(just to make an example) it was far less stable (because of the Unity
bugs solved in the meantime).

Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will probably be a different story, because Unity is
more stable. LTS means Long Term Support, and this sometimes translates
into a mess if the user thinks that LTS = more stable. In Italy, we had
complaints about LibreOffice from people trying to use Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
for enterprise deployments, which have been solved by using a non LTS
version of Ubuntu.

Again, the last version is always the best one for most users.
Suggesting the older version for enterprise deployments is just showing
an additional level of user care by offering an alternative to people
with a different update cycle.

#82

Florian Reisinger wrote

Hi,The problem we have: We do not have one release branch as Firefox has,
we have two... Users should use and find bugs on the "Fresh" version in
order to make thee fresh, which will be renamed to stable after 6M.So how
to say "you can use the feature packed fresh"? It is not an RC it is an
tested final release....So yes, we have a different model, so we need
different names then the standard :slight_smile:

Two suggestions:1. Do not use misrepresentation through soft or ambiguous
language <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzZaev8bmM> in order to
deliberately misdirect users to download the unstable branch. This is NOT
how to garner good will. Use plain simple language like Debian's: Testing,
Unstable, Stable, Old Stable.2. Instead of trying to misdirect people to
the Unstable version, *make it easy for people to use both the unstable and
the stable version AT THE SAME TIME*. Right now your Unstable base
consists of two groups: the Willing and those that have been Misled into
using it.Normal end users might be willing to use the Unstable branch if
they KNEW they could just click on the Stable branch icon and work in that
if something crashed and they needed to get work done. Read that: time
constraints. Regards.

#83

Hi :slight_smile:
That is the sort of argument MANY on this Mailing List agree with. Please
take it to the Discus Mailing List and maybe the social networking channels
if you really want to get heard but it's going to make you unpopular. I am
on fairly permanent moderation due to daring to say such things.
Good luck and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#84

Hi nn,

[...]
...2. Instead of trying to misdirect people to
the Unstable version, [...]

I'm sorry to say, but you didn't inform yourself well enough before
writing. As explained before - in this thread too - both Still and Fresh
are stable.

IMO all we can learn from this discussion is that better explanation at
the website is a fair wish.

If people here are able to write that, comprehensive though brief, and
maybe also are skilled to help with the site itself: more then welcome.

Kind regards,
Cor

#85

Hi Tom,

That is the sort of argument MANY on this Mailing List agree with. Please
take it to the Discus Mailing List and maybe the social networking channels
if you really want to get heard but it's going to make you unpopular.

What you wrote here looks as nonsense to me, if alone due to the fact
that the post you react on is ill-informed.

I am on fairly permanent moderation due to daring to say such things.

Well, AFAIK it's because sometimes your 'mixed quality' writings are
that much disturbing (misleading), that the hope is that moderation will
keep you a bit sharp - on the positive side. It's not because you have
or write ideas sometimes that may not be the same as 'people higher up'
- whomever that may be at a given moment, and whether or not those share
a same opinion.
On the other hand: your positive tone and the wide range of topics that
you tend to explain, are of course much appreciated.

Good luck and regards from

Yeah - thanks :slight_smile:
Kind regards,
Cor

#86

Hence the sincere need to have it well and clearly visible explained.
Thanks a lot for your help,
Cor

#87

I see this is still doing the rounds. And the parties are as far from
common ground as ever. Ah well...

Hi Tom,

> That is the sort of argument MANY on this Mailing List agree with.
> Please take it to the Discus Mailing List and maybe the social
> networking channels if you really want to get heard but it's going
> to make you unpopular.

What you wrote here looks as nonsense to me, if alone due to the fact
that the post you react on is ill-informed.

I don't see anything in Tom's reply that looks even vaguely like
nonsense. And I don't think the post is misinformed. I know it is
claimed that *both* branches are stable, but that is of course just as
inaccurate as saying that one is an unstable branch. The truth is that
both are in a pretty stable condition, but one is *more* stable but less
feature-full, and one is *less* stable and more feature-full, at least
if things are as intended. Not a problem, per se, but a problem when
not explained clearly. Many people, once finding out about the
difference, will just use the common terms, and their associated
meanings, of stable and testing, and be annoyed that they were
"tricked" into using testing. Unless people are *clearly* told what the
branches represent, and given a *choice*, LO will continually face
this problem.

In addition, from the "misinformed" post, this:

*make it easy for people to use both the unstable and
the stable version AT THE SAME TIME*

Is another excellent suggestion (and could be expanded to include
making it *easy* to have many versions side by side), along with making
the website clearer about what the user is downloading and why, as was
my previous suggestion. Once again, I urge whomever is behind this
stuff to implement these changes, and I now think both these changes
are equally important.

> I am on fairly permanent moderation due to daring to say such
> things.

Well, AFAIK it's because sometimes your 'mixed quality' writings are
that much disturbing (misleading),

"Mixed quality" writings? Now your reply is looking like nonsense.
Tom's material may not always be helpful in that it doesn't always have
answers to the asked question, but it is always friendly, and attempts
to be as helpful as he can be, even if it is just assuring the
questioner that someone has heard and can suggest nothing further than
the manuals. I don't really see a case for "writings of 'mixed
quality'".

that the hope is that moderation
will keep you a bit sharp - on the positive side.

You mean to say his posts are being moderated? I always thought that
was just his persecution complex showing. Hearing that he may be right
does not me happy make. I see no reason in anything he has done since
I've been on this list to suggest he may need moderation. Of course,
maybe that's because his outrageous posts are all being discarded by
the moderators.

It's not because
you have or write ideas sometimes that may not be the same as 'people
higher up'
- whomever that may be at a given moment, and whether or not those
share a same opinion.

On the other hand: your positive tone and the wide range of topics
that you tend to explain, are of course much appreciated.

While I decided to voice my opinion on what I felt were comments casting
Tom in an unfair light, I should also point out that I agree with the
above. To all who comment on this list, I think you're doing a great
job, this is one of the best lists I am or have been on, and even these
sorts of discussions are good in that at least everything is out in the
open and everybody can have their say.

Just my 0.02c

Paul

#88

Hi :slight_smile:
Yes, "Fresh" is stable but because it's had new features added we can
expect to find that some things that don't so well in "Fresh" and yet still
find that they work perfectly fine in "Still".

To many of us that all sounds like a lot of politicians, or marketing,
double-speak.

Obviously what normal users users think of as stable is different from what
devs think of. To most of us "Stable" means that functionality that we
have grown used to still works just fine. That is clearly different from
what the devs mean.

The recent Rtf question is a classic example. The "Still" branch carries
on working with it just fine. The "Fresh" branch seems to have a problem
with it. To most of us that is an example of the "Fresh" branch being less
reliable, less stable, than the "Still" branch.

However the "Fresh" branch DOES have tons of advantages and i imagine that
many, many people would choose "Fresh" rather than "Still" in many, many
cases. Just not to unsupported technophobes who are new to OpenSource.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#89

Hi Florian,

I do like "stable" and "old stable" - because that's the situation. (Was a suggestion from Debian) (deleted the rest)

IMO it is a good approach to give the new naming a fair change _and_
proper explanation. Discussing the zillion other options - what has been
done before - doesn't help with that
I hope you understand this.

Cor

#90

Normally I avoid religious arguments where the Fundamentalist Parboilians
are just as firmly welded to their position as their opponents the
Pastafarians are to theirs.

But even such a non-dev as I am can understand alpha, beta, unstable,
stable, and final release, simply because all other open source projects
except LibreOffice use them consistently. So why fix what ain't broke?

The dev team have taken on themselves the burden of explaining a new and
baffling terminology which substitutes new words for old meanings. Do
reduce your workload by just reverting to the tried, true, and understood.

And leave Tom alone. He mightn't have the answer to every problem (who
does?) but at least he points you in the right direction.

Regards,
Hedley

Typed laboriously on my Galaxy S2

#91

Hello Hedley,

We do have alphas betas and rvs for both branches. Just sayin'.

Best,

Charles.

#92

Agreed.

Why for criminy's sake reinvent these terms using such nonsensical words?

Just use *estabalished* terms, aka Debian...

Stable (Still). Testing (Fresh). Unstable (Development).

This is really just a ridiculous state of affairs.

#93

I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the inability of some to even understand what is being discussed.

Fresh is not testing. It has never been "testing". If you want testing, test betas, or release candidates. We have these for both branches, so let me rephrase this so to make it clear for everyone :

Fresh branch
(x.y.0, x.y.1 , etc.)
for each of these versions, we have several betas and release candidates.
This means that testing has happened already on betas and release candidates for each version of the fresh branch.

Still branch
(w.x.4, w.x.5, w.x.6)
for each of these versions, we have several betas and release candidates.
This means that testing has happened already on betas and release candidates for each version of the fresh branch.

Cor made a very good point earlier. He highlighted the importance of finding a proper way to clarify this, but not wasting our time in proposing other terms who will never be liked by everyone anyway. Let me encourage all those who pretend to actually have an opinion or who think the Illuminati are leading the LibreOffice project to focus on helping rather than complaining.

Thanks!

Charles.

#94

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...

>> Yes, "Fresh" is stable but because it's had new features added we
>> can expect to find that some things that don't so well in "Fresh"
>> and yet still
>> find that they work perfectly fine in "Still".
>>
>> To many of us that all sounds like a lot of politicians, or
>> marketing, double-speak.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Why for criminy's sake reinvent these terms using such nonsensical
> words?
>
> Just use *estabalished* terms, aka Debian...
>
> Stable (Still). Testing (Fresh). Unstable (Development).
>
> This is really just a ridiculous state of affairs.

I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the inability
of some to even understand what is being discussed.

I'm afraid, Charles, that this applies to you too. Everyone seems to be
talking at cross-purposes.

Fresh is not testing. It has never been "testing".

And yet, from the perspective of the terminology many, many people are
used to from so very many other projects, it *is* the testing branch.
Even if that isn't a true representation of the actual state of
affairs, people are used to thinking in those terms, and the current
state of affairs doesn't prevent that, it only confuses people as they
try to work out which branch is the "testing" branch and which is the
"stable" branch, because those are the terms they are used to and
expecting.

Just changing terminology doesn't help people, only clear explanations
would, and you don't need to change terminology for that. If you didn't
change terminology, and had clear explanations, it is debatable if it
would be better or worse than changed terminology and clear
explanations, but either state would be so many leagues ahead of
changed terminology and no explanations, as it is now, that it is
baffling as to why those in charge are fighting so adamantly to keep
things as they are. Never mind changing the terminology again, who do
they still insist on not putting any explanations on the website?

If you want
testing, test betas, or release candidates. We have these for both
branches, so let me rephrase this so to make it clear for everyone :

Fresh branch
(x.y.0, x.y.1 , etc.)
for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
candidates.
This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
candidates for each version of the fresh branch.

Still branch
(w.x.4, w.x.5, w.x.6)
for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
candidates.
This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
candidates for each version of the fresh branch.

A good (for us, at least) explanation, but again, why are we the only
ones getting it, and not the public at large?

Cor made a very good point earlier. He highlighted the importance of
finding a proper way to clarify this, but not wasting our time in
proposing other terms who will never be liked by everyone anyway. Let
me encourage all those who pretend to actually have an opinion or who
think the Illuminati are leading the LibreOffice project to focus on
helping rather than complaining.

Some of us have, but have been pointedly ignored. Why is this?

As I have said before, put clear explanations on the website. Without
that, no change in terminology will *ever* be adequate. And this really
shouldn't be hard to do. And should be a priority.

I realise that you have previously said that this is the only forum to
complain about this issue, and that the other forums (like twitter, I
think it was), had very few to no complaints about the terminology
change, but so what? What is the downside to putting clear explanations
on the website? It can hardly make it worse for those that are already
happy with the situation, and can only make it better for those that
are unhappy or confused, so why so much resistance to it?

The other solution, to make it *easy* to install side-by-side versions,
should be done irrespective of the terminology, but I realise that will
take considerably longer to implement. Although it still should be
recognised as an important part of this puzzle.