Tom,
I don't feel accusing people of lying is going to be very constructive. if
anything you are displaying worrying signs of your complete ignorance in
basic software development and it's so basic you don't need to be a
developer. So let me put this in very clear terms for you: SOFTWARE IS
BUGGY. IT WILL ALWAYS BE BUGGY. And yes, open source software is all about
telling everyone about identified bugs or potential bugs. Even in a stable
release. Why? BECAUSE SOFTWARE IS BUGGY. Even proprietary software. It's
always the case. So what happens with asking about our two branches and
which one is the most stable? For one thing having two branches tends to be
the rule in software development world, not the exception. Vendors or
projects may not always label them that way, but having a maintenance
branch and the "up-to-date" branch is the usual method out there. The
up-to-date branch builds on top of the maintenance branch (i.e includes
bugfixes and security related patches) while introducing new features.
Introducing new features usually leads to new bugs, and sometimes even
regressions. New bugs, because, did I ever mention this? SOFTWARE HAS BUGS.
Therefore, the new branch will have new, and often unnoticed bugs. That's
the way it works. We don't tell lies, but 3.5.4 will have more bugs
squashed than the 3.5.0 , but the 3.5.0 will have in theory more bugs
squashed than, say, the 3.4.3 (the release that was before the new branch
was released). The 3.5.x is thus not a developer branch at all, but for
users (i.e. corporations) looking for certainty, you may indeed want to
push for their adoption of, say, a 3.4.6 or a 3.5.4 . That's how it works.
Remember: the 3.5.0 is stable, regular people can use it everyday just
fine, but you know what? SOFTWARE HAS BUGS. Some of these users may be
disgruntled. It's the way it works. Have you talked to disgruntled MS
Office users? They complain about bugs too. We all do. So please, don't
crosspost to the universe about the blatant lies of TDF officials when
somebody squawks about a bug; report the bugs, or have the user become a
bug reporter and that will actually be helpful.
Thanks,
Charles.
2012/6/3 Tom Davies<tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
Hi :)
Many people are willing and even enjoy testing and trying out the latest
newest version especially if that means they get to play with new
features. There are so many of them they even have names such as "early
adopters". We need to attract more of them!!
Those people are not looking for stability. They are looking for fresh
and exciting or just trying to stay ahead of the game and see what is
coming up next.
Sell those new early releases using those aspects as the way of promoting
them.
If you blatantly lie and tell people that the new branch is "stable" then
those ear4ly-adopters lose interest and go elsewhere, to other projects
that ARE doing new and exciting things AND telling people about it.
At the same time, by claiming that the latest new thing IS your most
stable version then if/when they find regressions they wont bother looking
at previous versions. After all you have just told them there is no
version more stable than the one they have been given and therefore any
problems are NEW bugs. So, they walk away to find other products that do
have the functionality they are looking for and just tell people they know
that LO is just not ready yet.
In almost all cases that got as far as the Users List those blockers were
solved by simply getting them to try the 3.4.6 release. The one that
didn't have all the regressions you would expect from a new and exciting
branch.
I seem to be explaining this really badly. If i say it 1 way around
people think i am a jerk because of course i should expect regressions in
the latest software. But what if i don't want the latest? What if i want
something solid and reliable?
The official website has been telling people that 3.5.0 and so on where
the most reliable when they weren't!! If it told them instead that they
were getting the ultra-latest then they might be happier about accepting
regressions and perhaps looking back for a more stable version. If they
are told it IS the most stable version then WHY would they look?
Now there is a question on the User List asking if the 3.5.4 is stable
and ready for corporate use. NO-ONE can TRUSTS the official TDF line, as
repeated by Italo, because it has been used so many times before and then
found to be false in so many cases. Which part of this line is true this
time and which part is a lie this time? "3.5.x is stable, although there
are some regressions". The 1st part tells us that it is ready for
corporate usage, the 2nd part contradicts that.
However the whole discussion can be avoided by actually telling the truth
instead of lying about it and then trying to cover-up the lie. Sell the
product on what really ARE its good points (ok, and stretch it a little as
every marketing department for every product probably does).
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Sun, 3/6/12, Italo Vignoli<italo.vignoli@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Italo Vignoli<italo.vignoli@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is
3.5.4 ready for business users?
To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Sunday, 3 June, 2012, 11:07
3.5.x is stable, although there are some regressions which impact on
some users. Of course, this is not implying that 3.5.x is perfect, and
we will never have a perfect software as bugs and regressions are part
of the process especially when you are developing new features on a 20
years old code base.
Unfortunately, as it is the case for proprietary software as well, the
only way to check if bugs and regressions impact your usage patterns is
to install the software and start using it.
Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :) The 3.5.0 was blatantly not ready for business use and was not
stable, as we saw from the number of problems people had on the
lists, problems that were often solved by going back to 3.4.x. It
was absurd to claim that 3.5.0 or 3.5.1 or 3.5.2 were stable.
--
Italo Vignoli - italo.vignoli@gmail.com
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316436@messagenet.it
skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vignoli@gmail.com
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.