LibreOffice Still?

users
#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.

#95

Hi Paul,

[...]

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.

This is very easy on Windows with the SI GUI, see here
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Server_Install_GUI

and see here for Linux where it's also really easy:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel

Kind regards
Sophie

#96

Hi :slight_smile:
I think people are talking about a single installer that does the whole
job. Something that normal users can just double-click on, rather than a
long set of complicated instructions.

Good point though. There ARE instructions for installing both, so we are
part-way towards what people are suggesting.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#97

That is what is doing the Windows installer. On Linux, there is only one
command line and a file to edit, so really I don't see how it's
complicated. I don't know about Mac however.
Kind regards
Sophie

#98

On a Mac, you can install as many instances of LibreOffice as you want,
provided that each one has a different name, but it is way better to
have only one of them open (there might be configuration conflicts, as
they might be accessing the same configuration file).

Of course, by using the Terminal you can tweak configurations, but a
typical Mac user is not supposed to use the Terminal.

#99

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

Oh, I understand what is being discussed.

What you don't understand is the complaint.

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

I'm not arguing about what 'Fresh' relates to.

I'm saying that creating these totally new, never before head of terms
to describe different branches of software - ie, 'Fresh', 'Still' etc -
rather than using some standard terms/terminology that actually are used
by many different projects (admittedly, there is some amount of
variation) - ie, 'Stable', 'Testing', 'Development' - is what is ridiculous.

Use STANDARD terms, then precisely define THOSE.

If you really insist on having two different 'Stable' branches, then
name them something like 'Stable-New' and 'Stable-Old' or something else
that makes much more sense than 'Still' or 'Fresh.

Of course, if you just enjoy *creating* confusion, then by all means,
continue reinventing terms with new ones that no one understands and
sound silly on top of it all.

#100

Hi Sophie, Tom, et al.

Thank you for the instructions. I knew it was possible, but hadn't
looked into it.

As Tom pointed out though, this does need to be part of the standard
installer, which I don't think this is? People shouldn't have to go
looking for ways to do this, just downloading LO and installing it
should give them that choice up front.

But thank you for the links. It is very useful to have this on the list
for people to find.

Kind regards

Paul