![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
What do those question s have to do with choosing a version of LO???
Everything actually. My point is this: if your neighbours will be using their office suite doing what 80% of users do then they might as well choose Fresh. If they are running businesses they might want to go for the Still branch.
Best,
Charles.
Hello Pikov,
Hello Pikov,
No great mystery.
If they are more conservative--LibreOffice 4.2.6 is a solid build,
somewhat lacking in the latest office features.
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-still/
If they have more tolerance for change, and accept the potential
for
some as yet undescribed bugs affecting use, then early adoption of
the
4.3.0 branch is a reasonable choice.
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-fresh/
Both are good well tested software packages.
Interesting answer.
I think you're saying that 4.2.6 is essentially bugfree, but 4.3.x is
not.Sigh. Both are NOT bugfree. Stable is a stage and no software ca be
bug free.
I didn't say, bugfree, Charles. I said "essentially bugfree". Don't be
a
hardass.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be! I was just trying to clarify those terms.
Cheers,
Charles.
Equally, I feel it could read "if they will be using their office suite
doing what 80% of users do then they might as well choose Still. If
they find that something is missing, then they might want to go for the
the Fresh branch."
The big debate recently has been over exactly this issue. A lot of
people on this list (myself included) have expressed the opinion that it
is best in this sort of circumstance to go for Still, but Charles is
among those that feel that it is best to go for Fresh. The majority
opinion on *this* list seems to be to go for Still, but Charles reports
from elsewhere that the majority opinion he has received is that Fresh
is better.
Ultimately it is a choice between Fresh, which has newer features but
also a higher chance of bugs, and Still, which has fewer features but
likely also fewer bugs. How many new features, how important the
features are, how many more bugs, and how serious those bugs are is not
always so clear
You must choose, based on what you think your neighbours will value
most, and on how you feel about probably having to support their
installs.
Paul
But why?
Hi 
Exactly! Actually it doesn't really matter which you choose.
Either way new users are bound to be unhappy at first and some of those are
going to want the other version from whichever you gave them to begin
with.
Are you going to be able to be able to give them a reasonable reason why
the new version you give is an improvement over whichever you gave them to
start with? Is that reason likely to encourage them in a direction you'd
like them to go in?
What Charles is saying you should do is likely to be more helpful to
LibreOffice than to you or your neighbours. If/when your neighbours run
into bugs and report them to you then you report them to our bug-tracker.
Your neighbours keep having to deal with the problem until someone comes up
with a work-around or patch. If it's a patch it would be handy to get your
neighbour to test the patch for us.
Paul and pretty much everyone else is saying to put your neighbours first.
To give them a version less likely to have problems.
[Shrugs] it doesn't really matter to us.
I feel we have caused you too much stress. Just flip a coin and let that
show you what you have already decided.
* If it falls a way that makes you feel uncomfortable then go the other
way.
* If you flip it and feel happy with the result then go with it.
* If you flip it and don't really care then either go for "best of 3" or
just do what the coin happened to land on.
Note that this is NOT gambling and it is important to NOT follow the way
the coin landed IF that way makes you feel uncomfortable. It is only a
decision-making tool to help you discover which way you have already
decided but then cleverly hidden from yourself.
Regards from
Tom
The big debate recently has been over exactly this issue. A lot of
people on this list (myself included) have expressed the opinion that it
is best in this sort of circumstance to go for Still, but Charles is
among those that feel that it is best to go for Fresh.
I have read most of the thread (I am on holiday in the US, and I do not
read all emails I receive), so I might have missed something important.
I think that either opinion is right, because it is based on each one
needs and experiences. I am a user, without major technical skills, but
I have always used the latest version without real problems (some crash
but no more and no less than with other software, including proprietary
ones).
I have never lost any information, and although I am a heavy Impress
user I have never lost any image in any file (even while switching from
MacOS X to Linux and vice versa). I mention this, because it is a real
problem for many users.
This represents my experience, and is worth as much as my experience can
be considered a good one or a bad one. I think that free software should
teach users to be more self conscious about their skills, and decide
which is the best version for their needs.
I second Charles' opinion about a larger number of users choosing the
latest release (fresh) over the older one (still). Of course, these are
not scientific statistics, but individual perceptions. In some cases I
have suggested the older release, and I am definitely suggesting the
older release to enterprises.
Ultimately it is a choice between Fresh, which has newer features but
also a higher chance of bugs, and Still, which has fewer features but
likely also fewer bugs.
In some cases you need a feature and do not stumble into a bug because
of your workflow, and Fresh is the ideal choice. In some cases, you do
stumble into a bug because of your workflow and Still is the right choice.
I think that it is a matter of explaining to new users that they have a
choice between two options (which is something they never had with any
other software). Some users will understand, some others will not.
Italo makes a good point, perhaps the best thing to do is to explain
the situation to your neighbours and let them decide.
I'm not sure if that's an option; I know at least one couple I have
installed LO for that keep confusing LO and their mailreader,
firewall, firefox, etc... Trying to explain to them such differences
*might* work at the time, but they would invariably just get confused
about it later, and give me more hassles when something goes wrong. And
ultimately, they would probably just ask for my opinion anyway.
For them, they are a basic usage scenario, so they don't really need
anything more than what LO already has. However, almost any time
anything goes even slightly wrong they tend to start talking about how I
should uninstall it and put on MSO, so I definitely want the Still
branch for them, as anything to reduce the number of issues they have
makes my life a whole lot easier, even if it is just by one minor bug.
But your neighbours may be a little more savvy. This couple may be able
to use a computer, but they don't get how the pieces fit together. If
your neighbours understand just a little more, asking them what they
prefer may be a good option. YMMV.
Paul
My neighbors wouldn't know what I was talking about! They treat
their computers like they treat their cars -- get, turn the key, put the
gear thingy in D, and go. As it should be.
Not my neighbors! They want to be able to open DOC files, write letters,
maybe do a simple spreadsheet. So compatibility with MSO files is
super-important.
Software should be transparent.
I really just got a little laugh (not following the thread generally) but:
>
>
> Everything really depends on you neighbors' needs, and wants. You need
> to discuss with them what they want our of the software packages you
> install for them.Not my neighbors! They want to be able to open DOC files, write letters,
maybe do a simple spreadsheet. So compatibility with MSO files is
super-important.Software should be transparent.
Having "software should be transparent" next to "be able to open DOC files"
(doc of course being closed source proprietary software for years
controlled by a company who is anything but transparent) reads a bit
comical
Again - not following the thread generally and purposely am avoiding
further comment. Just got a little kick out of this particular email Not
that I disagree that interoperability is super important - I'd say equally
important is convincing our neighbors that there are alternatives that are
indeed transparent, functional, and easy to use (odf of course).
Best,
Joel
--
*Joel Madero*
LibreOffice QA Volunteer
jmadero.dev@gmail.com
What difference does it make that a file was produced by a proprietary
program?
The operator of LO would like to be able to just click on that file's
icon or name have LO open it, without having to know anything else about
LO or Microsoft.
That's what I meant by transparent.
What difference does it make that a file was produced by a proprietary
program?The operator of LO would like to be able to just click on that file's
icon or name have LO open it, without having to know anything else about
LO or Microsoft.That's what I meant by transparent.
Sure - and we wish that Microsoft would stop "moving the ball" on us. You
know that "docx" actually encompasses 3 completely different protocols?
These having thousands of pages of documentation that make it INCREDIBLY
hard to implement interoperability. So - who do we blame for these
shinanigans? If we're saying "users just want it to work" - well....I have
very little response to that beyond asking users to educate themselves a
little, and hopefully blame the right parties for the lack of perfect
interoperability.
Best,
Joel
Hi Pikov,
I really just got a little laugh (not following the thread generally) but:
>
>
> Everything really depends on you neighbors' needs, and wants. You need
> to discuss with them what they want our of the software packages you
> install for them.Not my neighbors! They want to be able to open DOC files, write letters,
maybe do a simple spreadsheet. So compatibility with MSO files is
super-important.Software should be transparent.
Having "software should be transparent" next to "be able to open DOC
files" (doc of course being closed source proprietary software for years
controlled by a company who is anything but transparent) reads a bit
comicalWhat difference does it make that a file was produced by a proprietary
program?
you're right, this is not the program that is important but the file
format. Giving the ability to the users to retrieve the data he owns
over years is the real important thing.
The operator of LO would like to be able to just click on that file's
icon or name have LO open it, without having to know anything else about
LO or Microsoft.
The day Microsoft will abandoned the binary file format it produces,
this operator will regret to not use LibreOffice and its default ODF
file format. This is not just like clicking on a button, this is data
you produced and where you should remain the only proprietary, not the
software that produced it.
Kind regards
Sophie
The issue s whether or not the end user can, in theory at least, go in and fix whatever is causing the incompatibility with the documents
jonathon
What difference does it make that a file was produced by a proprietary program?
The issue s whether or not the end user can, in theory at least, go in and fix whatever is causing the incompatibility with the documents
I don't expect the user to fix anything. The person who sent the file
should be asked to resend it in a more commo format. (Can the latest
MSO save as ODT files?)
From my POV, MSO 2013 is too incompatible with MSO 2013, to be useful for anything more sophisticated than constructing a document that will never be read, much less printed out.
MSO 2013 is incompatible with itself???
I think he meant that MSO 2013 isn't fully compatible with MSO2010 or
MSO2007 despite all three using "docx" - because each version is different
and Microsoft just hides this to the average user.
Best,
Joel
I didn't know that. So if I have MSO 2007 and get a DOCX file from
someone with MSO 10 or 13, can I expect to have trouble opening it?
I didn't know that. So if I have MSO 2007 and get a DOCX file from
someone with MSO 10 or 13, can I expect to have trouble opening it?
Not necessarily opening it but there is not perfect interoperability
between the different versions - so you might see differences of
formatting, etc... within the document. I'm not sure if there are cases
that a 2013 created document simply won't open in 2007 - would be
interesting to find out though.
Best,
Joel
Hi,
Commnts inline...
Liebe Grüße, / Yours,
Florian Reisinger
MSO 2013 is incompatible with itself???
Yes! Open Excel, use THE "Date bug" (a Feb 29th which never exists in reality, but in xls and OOXML traditional) and save as OOXML Strict. The file cannot be opened by Excel, but with LibO... More info from Italo: http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2014/08/01/libreoffice-4-3/comment-page-1/#comment-9979 (please follow the link to his blog)
To be honest: I have not tested it myself and the next comment says it cannot be opened by Office 2013 as well... Hoped the linked helped 
Did not test myself