Working on an archive site/pages for LO and the DVD[s] I have been working with

users
#1

I have had the idea for a few months now, so I figured it was time to start working on it.

The original NA-DVD site has a set of archive pages for the installs that went into the NA-DVD[s]. There are all of the OSs and the language and help packs that were linked within the "default" install page[s].

This version of the site pages will have the contents of the DVDs, but will have installs for:
3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4
3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3
plus the new ones when they come out.

See what you think. I need to work on the wording to describe the differences between the 3.3.x line and the 3.4.x line. I could use some words to describe what line is best to use where. I know that soon the 3.4.x line will be "enterprise ready" and the "most stable" and "cutting edge" words soon will not be the best. Also, when 3.5.x line comes out, "most stable" will be describing 3.4.x versions. So maybe not using that phrase would be better for marketing.

http://libreoffice-na.us/multi-version/install.html

Any advice could be helpful.

#2

Hi :slight_smile:
Good work chap! :)  It's good to see all that work will remain available for a good long time :slight_smile:

I think you are thinking of Debian, this is LO and uses a different system.  "Stable" and "Old" are not always inter-changeable.

As far as i can tell the 3.4.x branch has never been claimed to have long-term support.  Patches, updates and such are never likely to be back-ported to that branch.  Although that is not really an issue as LO doesn't seem to do updates anyway.  It's the long-term support that makes something "stable" and thus useful to corporate clients.

At the outset the 3.3.x branch was claimed to have long term support of up to 1 year from release date.  Quite what that support means in a project that develops so much so fast that it has no time for minor updates is unclear.  The 3.4.3 is claimed to be "stable" but again it's unclear what that means.  Perhaps LO will decide whether to use the Debian or the Ubuntu plan or make a new one.  At the moment it's just unclear or at least not obvious.

On the plus side it is relatively trivial to test new releases and then roll-out upgrades without messing-up peoples settings or even to revert back to previous releases if a serious problem happens.  People seldom need to be on the same release at the same time in order to share stuff but to create some things initially you might need the latest.

The Ubuntu model differs from the Debian one by having strictly scheduled releases every 6 months.  These are it's equivalent of "Development" releases and have a limited "shelf life" of 'only' 18months.  Every 2 years (2006, 2008, 2010) one of their 6 monthlies is developed as an "LTS" so more effort goes into making it more solid so that it will last longer.  More importantly during the 3 years after release any important patches and updates writtten for any of the normal 6monthlies gets back-ported to the supported LTSes and some updates and patches get written specifically for those LTSes.  In around 2005 or before it was decided that so much work was going to be focused on the LTS that there would only be 1 release that year and it would be pushed back 2 months to June making it 6.06 LTS rather than having a 6.04 LTS and a 6.10 (err normal/development/6monthly).  Technical support and documentation also continue to be developed for the LTSes
but i think it's the updates including the back-ported ones that are the crucial part of claiming that a release is stable.

So, Ubuntu has a system that is clear and obvious to non-geeky corporate clients.  It gives them confidence in planning for the future, such as when to schedule a roll-out of upgrades across a large number of machines.  They also gain confidence knowing that if threats develop or accidents happen then updates will happen 'automatically' and they can rely on getting tech support if needed.

Of course the flip-side, as most non-business types appreciate, is that the product might be better sometimes with a little more work which might take 5 mins or might take 5 months.  Most OpenSource projects (before Ubuntu) were quite happy delaying releases until they were ready with the better product.  It's more rigorous and the product has better integrity but it is exactly the opposite of corporate culture and totally beyond their understanding.  They see it as lazy and unpredictable even tho that misses the point completely.  Ubuntu's answer was to 'freeze' development of each project at a point the product is "good enough" and then the next release hopefully contains the better product.

The 3.4.3 is the best release to use.  I'm not sure it's appropriate to describe one branch as better than another for any particular reason now that the 3.4.3 is claimed to be stable (whatever they mean by that).  Existing users of 3.3.0 and 3.3.1 will need to start thinking about details of upgrading soon as their year is almost up already.  3.3.2 and 3.3.3 need to start planning if they haven't already.  My plan is to sit&wait for the Ppa to give me a new one but i have already downloaded the 3.4.3 for both Windows and Debian-family (Ubuntu) and saved it to the network so i can upgrade if i happen to have time and access to a particular machine.  Not exactly a good corporate strategy and not a great plan for places that have a lot of machines!

Good luck and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#3

The site looks great.  I am interested in downloading the DVD ISO but it seems that the links are not yet ready.  Am I correct in thinking that I can download the individual packages but not the entire DVD ISO yet?  If I wrong then please point me to the link for the DVD ISO.
 
Thanks for all the work you are putting into this project.
 
John McAtee

#4

The site looks great. I am interested in downloading the DVD ISO but it seems that the links are not yet ready. Am I correct in thinking that I can download the individual packages but not the entire DVD ISO yet? If I wrong then please point me to the link for the DVD ISO.

Thanks for all the work you are putting into this project.

Hello John

Well, there was / is DVD images planned.
- to make a long story short;
Tim (who has put in a lot of work on that site) was supposed to be
getting some help on the DVD image build side from a partner, the
partner keeps letting him, and the plan down by not finishing his
piece ....but that is the plan :frowning:

As to just having that site as a repository of sorts for older binary
releases, even sans DVD images for each, seems like a good thing to have
come out of his efforts (not trying to dodge that whole 'not getting the
dvd image built step' here...) and really if you think about it the
older builds might make less sense for a full DVD sized download...

...as for the DVD image, the weekends here, maybe the latest release
version can find a way into existence during it.

//drew

#5

There was going to be links for the CMS version of the DVD.

http://dvd.north-america.libreofficebox.org/home/
http://north-america.libreofficebox.org/home/

You will have to find out from Drew [these lists] what the time line for that to happen.

I have ISOs on my system, but I have no ability to host them on my web page account. They do not like a file larger than 100 Meg or so. The Windows versions run about 1.9 GB and the Win/Linux/Mac one is about 3.4 GB. I do mail DVDs out once in a while, though, but I do not like "eating" the cost of the mailing box and postage myself.

#6

Hi :slight_smile:
I really think Tim should be charging a reasonable set fee for the dvds and an additional amount for postage.

Beyond the obvious expenses there is time, wear&tear on equipment (accountants prefer the term "depreciation") and other hidden costs.  Inevitably there are going to be a small percentage of people that would be good to charge a reduced rate or even for free so the normal charge should be enough to absorb those costs.  Reasonable profit to allow the project to expand a bit seems like a good plan

Even Richard Stallman and the GPL, LGPL and MPL agreements agree with people earning  a reasonable amount as long as it's not just the software that is being sold.  In this case it's the Dvd and packaging that would be sold.

In the dim & distant future it might be possible to run it as a proper business but at the moment it's just a hobby.  Still, that;s not a good reason to run at a loss is it?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#7

Hi

  I think that usually some people refers that 3.3.x is more stable than
3.4.x and say too which is better for workstation and wich for
experimental. But usually forget to explain in simples and few words the
features differences between both that are very necesary to decide what
version we would use.

  I suggest to make a list features that 3.4.x has and hasn't has 3.3.x.
I suggest include a general descripcion about code changes that not take
change in features but yes in efficient.

Regards,

Jorge Rodríguez

#8

Hi

  And simple list about bugs solve in 3.4.x and exist in 3.3.x

  Thanks for your idea and job,

Regards,

Jorge Rodríguez

#9

Hi :slight_smile:
Hopefully just savign the Release Notes pages would do the trick well enough? 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#10

I have had the idea for a few months now, so I figured it was time to
start working on it.

The original NA-DVD site has a set of archive pages for the installs
that went into the NA-DVD[s]. There are all of the OSs and the language
and help packs that were linked within the "default" install page[s].

This version of the site pages will have the contents of the DVDs, but
will have installs for:
3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4
3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3
plus the new ones when they come out.

See what you think. I need to work on the wording to describe the
differences between the 3.3.x line and the 3.4.x line. I could use some
words to describe what line is best to use where. I know that soon the
3.4.x line will be "enterprise ready" and the "most stable" and "cutting
edge" words soon will not be the best. Also, when 3.5.x line comes out,
"most stable" will be describing 3.4.x versions. So maybe not using
that phrase would be better for marketing.

http://libreoffice-na.us/multi-version/install.html

Any advice could be helpful.

Could describing the difference as the newer release has more features
and is undergoing major development while the earlier release is being
concurrently supported and updated for 1 year (whatever the long term
support period is). Allowing users the choice of using the current
release series or beng able to use the older series allowing them to
upgrade at their convenience. This similar to Ubuntu's LTS release, the
LTS is support for 3 years for Ubuntu while the other releases are
supported for 18 months.

Note Ubuntu is currently using 3.4.3 as yesterday/today, 3.3.4 was
upgraded to 3.4.3 on my box today.

#11

Hi

  Thank you Jay and Tom for your information.

Regards,

Jorge Rodríguez

#12

Hi :slight_smile:
At this point we could probably start thinking about longer-term support than just 1 year.  A lot has changed this year and the future seems much more solidly certain for TDF and LO. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#13

I have had the idea for a few months now, so I figured it was time to
start working on it.

Why?

"most stable" will be describing 3.4.x versions. So maybe not using
that phrase would be better for marketing.

http://libreoffice-na.us/multi-version/install.html

Having reviewed the above web site:

The third line of the title refers to an American project. The project
should be explained in terms of history, purpose and objectives.

Subsequent paragraphs are vague.

Let us pose the question; why are two software versions promoted? This
is wrong. To avoid confusion, only 33 versions should be visible. In a
second page, e.g. explaining support, reference should be made to the
concept of users helping others via mailing lists and that for future
development, quality software testers required for future versions. It
is at this point that the use of version 34 is announced for this
purpose. For testers, suggested test environments should be explained;
e.g. a dual boot of the same gnu/linux operating system, one with
LO33, the other system with beta test versions such as the current
LO34.

The web page states m$ on numerous occasions. Not a single reference
to ODF! This is fundamentally wrong. What is the purpose of LO, to be
a m$ clone, or provide an alternative method of creating documents? Do
you want programmers to be wasting their time endlessly reverse
engineering m$ formats for "compatibility", or spending that precious
time developing the performance of odf formats. Remember, the
objective is an increase, a proliferation, of odf documents. The
objective is not an increase in m$ formats created/edited/distributed
using LO.

The web page does not promote a single feature _and_ benefit of using
LO. Being able to perpetuate m$ formats is of no benefit to LO or ODF.
An example that could have been promoted: "LO makes extensive use of
'styles', to enable documents to be created simply and quickly, whilst
format of text is controlled in a consistent manner.".

If LO33 is stable, why try and state that LO34 is also stable??? There
is an implication that LO33 is claimed to be the final product, but
really the programmers don't want a stable product to be used, they
want people to use a buggy LO34 version and report bugs instead of
actually using LO to create odf documents.

Paragraph 5 is even more worrying. It forgets that ideally, users
would be able to create documents with a stable product that does not
need upgrading every week.

#14

As far as i can tell the 3.4.x branch has never been claimed to have
long-term support. Patches, updates and such are never likely to be
back-ported to that branch. Although that is not really an issue as LO
doesn't seem to do updates anyway. It's the long-term support that makes
something "stable" and thus useful to corporate clients.

Rubbish. What is useful to businesses is a product that performs
consistently, reliably and to high quality. Per se, no business is
going to buy a product because of long-term "support" (whatever that
is) if the product is poor quality in the first instance. This is a
ludicrous claim: a broken photocopier is bought but because the
supplier offers "support", the photocopier is miraculously fixed!

At the outset the 3.3.x branch was claimed to have long term support of up
to 1 year from release date. Quite what that support means in a project
that develops so much so fast that it has no time for minor updates is
unclear. The 3.4.3 is claimed to be "stable" but again it's unclear what
that means. Perhaps LO will decide whether to use the Debian or the Ubuntu
plan or make a new one. At the moment it's just unclear or at least not
obvious.

Please refer to the url where it is stated that long-term support is
provided, especially by whom.

On the plus side it is relatively trivial to test new releases and then
roll-out upgrades without messing-up peoples settings or even to revert back
to previous releases if a serious problem happens. People seldom need to be
on the same release at the same time in order to share stuff but to create
some things initially you might need the latest.

Nonsense. Provide evidence of a single entity where users are
encouraged to test new releases (instead of performing productive
output contributing to the entity's profits) and time involved is
accounted for as "trivial".

If a document to be created requires a feature available only in the
latest version, everyone then requires the latest version in order to
see the document as intended. Another typical contradictory sentence.

The Ubuntu model differs from the Debian one by having strictly scheduled
releases every 6 months. These are it's equivalent of "Development"

There is more to gnu/linux than ubuntu.

So, Ubuntu has a system that is clear and obvious to non-geeky corporate
clients. It gives them confidence in planning for the future, such as when
to schedule a roll-out of upgrades across a large number of machines. They
also gain confidence knowing that if threats develop or accidents happen
then updates will happen 'automatically' and they can rely on getting tech
support if needed.

Rubbish. Businesses have chosen redhat (as an historic example of life
before ubuntu) because of stability and security whereby software
versions have operated in _years_ before changes are required.
Businesses also averse to automatic updates; because risk assessments
are often required to evaluate the impact of software changes,
especially where customisations have been done for specific reasons.

Of course the flip-side, as most non-business types appreciate, is that the
product might be better sometimes with a little more work which might take 5
mins or might take 5 months. Most OpenSource projects (before Ubuntu) were
quite happy delaying releases until they were ready with the better
product. It's more rigorous and the product has better integrity but it is
exactly the opposite of corporate culture and totally beyond their
understanding. They see it as lazy and unpredictable even tho that misses
the point completely. Ubuntu's answer was to 'freeze' development of each
project at a point the product is "good enough" and then the next release
hopefully contains the better product.

More rubbish. What business does not understand the software quality
assurance process, used in proprietary software by internal staff? Get
off ubuntu's ... and realise the gnu/linux world is far, far greater.

The 3.4.3 is the best release to use. I'm not sure it's appropriate to
describe one branch as better than another for any particular reason now
that the 3.4.3 is claimed to be stable (whatever they mean by that).
Existing users of 3.3.0 and 3.3.1 will need to start thinking about details
of upgrading soon as their year is almost up already. 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 need
to start planning if they haven't already. My plan is to sit&wait for the
Ppa to give me a new one but i have already downloaded the 3.4.3 for both
Windows and Debian-family (Ubuntu) and saved it to the network so i can
upgrade if i happen to have time and access to a particular machine. Not
exactly a good corporate strategy and not a great plan for places that have
a lot of machines!

LO34 is not the best to use; published bugs tell the story. Users can
use LO33 for as long as they wish, of their own volition. A user can
use LO33 in perpetuity regardless of "support".

This constant upgrade mentality of software is tiresome and
inefficient. If a user has a single, simple, basic requirement (e.g.
to write and print a club newsletter) and the hardware works for 10
years, until that hardware fails, the (open source) software can
continue to be used without upgrade.

#15

Hi Tom,

Tom Davies wrote (08-10-11 12:10)

At this point we could probably start thinking about longer-term
support than just 1 year. A lot has changed this year and the future
seems much more solidly certain for TDF and LO. Regards from Tom :slight_smile:

No one will hold you from thinking about that. But before building expectations, it is good to realise that decisions about release cycles are made by the people that do the development work.

Regards,

#16

Each line ends. If someone is still using 3.3.5 in December 2013 [13 months after it was released], they should be encouraged to upgrade to a newer line. I do not think there will be an end of support for an old product line, but to be honest, how long will we support the older lines? 2 years, 3 years?

We do need to set a policy on supporting older versions of LO. Right now, when people are asking questions about issues with older versions, they may be asked why they did not try a newer one. Many times the issues that people have with one version of LO is corrected with the next one. So if LO is on line 3.6.x, what do we say to a user that is still using 3.3.x? Do we tell them to try 3.4.x, 3.5.x, or 3.6.x, to fix the issue, or do we walk them through the "walk-around" for that issue they are having?

3.3.0 was released over 8 months ago [more if you include alpha and beta]. We are not at version 3.3.4, plus a new line with 3.4.3. We need to decide on what we are going to do or say for supporting the older versions. It is time. Even though support is through these lists, free to all who ask for it, most professional software companies should have support policies on how long they are going to keep supporting the older versions of their software. LO should also do this.

#17

Cor

Hi Tom,

Tom Davies wrote (08-10-11 12:10)

> At this point we could probably start thinking about longer-term
> support than just 1 year. A lot has changed this year and the future
> seems much more solidly certain for TDF and LO. Regards from Tom :slight_smile:

No one will hold you from thinking about that. But before building
expectations, it is good to realise that decisions about release cycles
are made by the people that do the development work.

Regards,

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

I think we are growing to point were the issue of long term support
probably needs to be addressed. I think this more an issue with
corporate users rather than home/home office users. Large organizations
dislike having to update very frequently and we need to find the best
balance for them and us. Linux users are probably affected less because
of the distros will provide one of the more recent versions. But Windows
and Mac users need to update manually or in a corporate environment the
IT department will need to roll out the new version/update. Firefox has
received criticism for their rapid versioning from 4 to 7 in the last
several months from corporate users.

There are several possibilities. We could say every odd or even (3.3 vs
3.4) is the LTS with support for 2 or 3 years and the other is supported
for 1 year for example. We could say every, say third release (3.3 the
3.6) is the LTS with support for the other version. One of the years
releases (3.3, 3.4, and 3.5?) could be designated the LTS. Please note
these are just ideas put out to stimulate thinking and discussion for us
to determine what is best overall for LO and our users.

Obviously, this is not an issue that can be decided without discussing
with others such as the devs before a decision is reached but one that
probably needs to addressing in the near future. The goal is to have a
policy that can be used for planning by us and by users and is
reasonable for both.

#18

planas wrote (09-10-11 18:05)

I think we are growing to point were the issue of long term support
probably needs to be addressed. I think this more an issue with
corporate users rather than home/home office users. Large organizations
dislike having to update very frequently

Tell me. I run a company providing professional support :wink:

and we need to find the best
balance for them and us. Linux users are probably affected less because

Cheers,

#19

Hi

  I'll try to contribute with something.

  I think that a LTS version of whatever product has to do the job well
(Their main performance for which it was made). In this case, LO
Software, I think that if It makes well all thinks that the Menu expose,
it is a LTS version because it is able to solve users usual needs. What
about bugs. I think that the bugs usually are special features that we
expect of LO, ... In others words, if there is a bug or bugs that
affects the calcs (actions), that we usually hope to do with the Menu,
that bug afffects seriously the version and it can't be LTS.

  And I think too that is necesary to support what ever official LTS
version until comes another new LTS version.

  I analized this thinking in a company, profesional or student. What
they need ? At least that the software does what it says that it can do
(On the Menu- Its performance).

Regards,

Jorge Rodríguez

#20

Jorge,

Hi

  I'll try to contribute with something.

  I think that a LTS version of whatever product has to do the job well
(Their main performance for which it was made). In this case, LO
Software, I think that if It makes well all thinks that the Menu expose,
it is a LTS version because it is able to solve users usual needs. What
about bugs. I think that the bugs usually are special features that we
expect of LO, ... In others words, if there is a bug or bugs that
affects the calcs (actions), that we usually hope to do with the Menu,
that bug afffects seriously the version and it can't be LTS.

  And I think too that is necesary to support what ever official LTS
version until comes another new LTS version.

  I analized this thinking in a company, profesional or student. What
they need ? At least that the software does what it says that it can do
(On the Menu- Its performance).

There two major issues about defining an LTS version. One is what
constitutes LTS, what do we explicitly promise users to do and how long
a term is the LTS. Obviously, bug fixes are included in the LTS but what
about backporting new features into the LTS for example. This is very
important for organizations planning their software support and upgrade
cycle. While LO is free for any user in larger organizations there are
deployment costs that are not trivial. My guess is the deployment costs
are roughly the same for LO and MSO. Someone has to prepare the
deployment and actually do the deployment. I am addressing more this
side of the issue. The issue I believe you are addressing is the
technical side, what to we do internally to make a good LTS version for
users, again this is very important and needs serious discussion.